Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Schools (Books)

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any evidence that sharing amongst children of essential textbooks is widespread; how this compares with previous years, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he remains satisfied with the availability of books in primary and secondary schools.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): Her Majesty's inspectors have reported satisfactory provision of books in some 700 schools out of 1,000 visited, and in just over half the local education authorities in England. There is, however, cause for concern about the availability of books in some areas and some schools and Her Majesty's inspectors have reported some cases of textbooks being shared. That is why the Government have made provision in their public expenditure plans for real increases of 2 per cent. each year in expenditure per pupil on books and equipment.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful for that illuminating reply. Will my right hon. and learned Friend advise local education authorities as soon as possible that capitation allowances can and should be spent on books, rather than on expensive teaching aids that may be of doubtful value?

Mr. Carlisle: I have often repeated the firm belief of myself and my fellow Ministers in the importance of the provision of books in schools. Capitation fees are under pressure, but over a period of years the proportion being spent on books, compared with other equipment, has been dropping.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Secretary of State aware that the attempt by his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) to cover up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's inadequate answer will not wash? The inspectorate, head teachers and teachers all over the country confirm that capitation allowances are inadequate because of tilt excessive cuts, that textbooks have to be shared in schools all over the country—children's education is suffering as a result—and that the capitation allowance does not cover the provision of computers and other equipment. It is no good trying to conceal those facts, because everybody knows them.

Mr. Carlisle: There is no desire to cover up an inadequate answer. I set out the position clearly, I said during our debate on the inspectors' report that we are concerned about the shortage of books in certain areas. That is why we have assumed in our public expenditure plans a slight increase in expenditure in that direction. It is no good suggesting that this has all happened in the past two years. As I said in our debate, when the previous Labour Government left office expenditure on books had fallen by 33 per cent. compared with the level when they took office.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend's Department monitoring the extent to which photocopiers are being used to reproduce work sheets? Can he confirm that that system is a suitable substitute for books in many areas of many subjects?

Mr. Carlisle: We are not monitoring in that way, but throughout the 1970s the proportion of the capitation fee spent on equipment, as against books, rose steadily.

Mr. Marks: Given that the supply of textbooks is unsatisfactory in 30 per cent. of schools, does the Secretary of State accept that the Secretary of State for the Environment's demand for further cuts from many councils will lead to a further deterioration?

Mr. Carlisle: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposed the other day was not a new round of cuts. He was merely pointing out that the budgeted expenditure proposals of local authorities were above what had been provided for in the White Paper. He invited local authorities to rebudget in an attempt to get in line with that. The amount of money for education as a whole is that set out in the White Paper. The volume of money for education has not been changed.

Mr. Field: Is not the Secretary of State's reading of the HMI report rather selective? Will he remind the House that the inspectorate reported to him that in over half the secondary schools there were severe problems with text books? Do not those results warrant more effective action than he has announced to the House?

Mr. Carlisle: I quoted directly from the inspectors' report in my answer. In 700 of the 1,000 schools visited, and in just over half the local education authorities, the situation was satisfactory. I accept that there were areas where there was cause for concern about the availability of books.

Mathematics and Science Graduates

Mr. Bright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many mathematics and science graduates this year have taken the one-year postgraduate teacher training course; and how this compares with previous years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): In 1980–81 the numbers of home students enrolled on postgraduate certificate courses of initial teacher training where the main subjects were mathematics and science were 828 and 1,946 respectively. This represents a 20 per cent. increase over 1978–79 and a 33 per cent. increase over 1979–80.

Mr. Bright: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that answer. Will he take measures to ensure that those people


who have been through the course find suitable teaching posts in mathematics and science for which they are qualified?

Mr. Macfarlane: Local education authorities and teachers will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. My right hon. and learned Friend has left no stone unturned in the Department of Education in trying to impress on local authorities the importance of recruiting such people and making special efforts where there are shortages. It is incumbent on local authorities and head teachers to provide those posts where they are needed in shortage areas.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, good though those figures may sound, the real danger, judging from experience, is that, when an upturn occurs in the economy, maths teachers, particularly those with computer experience, will be stripped from the schools by industry within months? Has he made any progress with the suggestion by the Select Committee that many people who are being made unemployed at present cannot be easily retrained because of their lack of a formal degree although they have the higher national diploma? Cannot the Department make progress on that?

Mr. Macfarlane: We are trying to make progress on all fronts. I do not want to leave the House with the impression that we are complacent in this area. We are trying a number of initiatives, as are local authorities. Our dialogue with industry and in other areas, where we feel there may be an opportunity for retraining those facing early retirement, is part and parcel of the initiatives we are taking on national schemes or individually with the interested parties who can help us.

Mr. Lyell: On a similar theme, will my hon. Friend remember that, when the last recession, a few years ago, ended, the numbers of maths, science and physics teachers declined? Will he look sympathetically at the opportunities for combining the postgraduate certificate of education course with the last year of postgraduate PhD courses as monitored in the Leicester experiment? Will he give that encouragement and not leave it to local authorities?

Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give a positive guarantee to my hon. Friend that that will automatically occur as a result of his question. However, I shall undertake to look at it. We hope that the figures so far will be sustained throughout 1981–82. In 1980–81, recruitment in courses of maths and physical sciences, as distinct from sciences generally, is 45 per cent. up on 1979–80. We think that that trend will be projected throughout the next year or two.

Higher Education

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied that the reduction in resources available for higher education is being shared equitably between universities and polytechnics.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): The reduction in resources for higher education in 1981–82 was broadly comparable for the university and non-university sectors. No decisions have yet been taken on the exact apportionment of the resources available to higher education as a whole in 1982–83 and 1983–4.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the universities' concern about reductions in resources would be increased if they thought that those reductions were being used to undermine their central place in the scheme of higher education?

Dr. Boyson: It is important that higher education should be looked at as a unity—on one side the universities and on the other the polytechnics and the maintained sector of higher education. We now have three committees across the binary line investigating student numbers, student costs and teacher training. The intention of those committees is not to undermine universities but to ensure that the money we can afford to spend is used for the most useful purposes possible.

Mr. Beith: What is the Government's policy on dealing with the effects of the public expenditure reductions, and the added effect of the policy on overseas students which has damaged many colleges and universities? Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that one or more universities or polytechnics will close or that there will be a widespread lowering of standards—or has he another alternative?

Dr. Boyson: The figures available to me on overseas students suggest that, compared with the income on the previous quota system of the Labour Government, there has been only a 1 per cent. decrease in the overall money coming into the universities this year. I can provide those figures for any hon. Gentleman to consider. If they can be proved wrong, fair enough. Those are the figures available.
The hon. Gentleman's other question concerned the use of resources inside universities and the maintained sector. In the university sector, as was shown in a letter from Dr. Parkes on 15 May, there is no intention to close any university; in the maintained sector that decision would have to be taken—I do not think that it will be taken—by the local education authorities.

Mr. Ennals: Does the Minister not condemn those local education authorities which have cut concessionary grants halfway through a two-year course, such as an A-level course, so that many of those who have had their grants cut are thrown on to the unemployment queue instead of completing their courses?

Dr. Boyson: The right hon. Member has raised an important point. The difference between mandatory and discretionary grants has long been one of the big problems. I trust that at some time it will be sorted out. Like the right hon. Member, I deplore the discretionary grant being given for the first year and being withdrawn in the second or third year of a course.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that just as important as the distribution of resources is the distribution of functions between the universities and other centres of higher education? Does he accept that, although the functions of universities, as centres of academic excellence, are relatively clear, the functions of other centres of higher education are not so clear?

Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sometimes a good thing to go back to first principles to discover what the intentions were when the polytechnics were established. They were certainly not established for


pure research. They were intended to produce the people we need in business, management and science. They were intended especially to respond to local demand in industry.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: As the Minister is looking at this as a matter of unity, is he not aware of the separate structure of universities and higher education facilities in Scotland, where there are virtually no polytechnics? In those circumstances, will he give his word that Scotland will be considered separately? If not, does he not think that it is inappropriate that he should continue as Minister?

Dr. Boyson: If my memory serves me correctly, the polytechnics in Scotland are not directly under this Department but are under the Scottish Education Department. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is nodding, so I must be correct. One appreciates that. The polytechnics were not established under this Government. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has raised his question too late.

Universities (Cuts)

Mr. Frank Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current public expenditure per student on university education aggregating total public expenditure from all sources on universities divided by total student numbers in the United Kingdom; and what will be the effect in real terms of proposed reductions in central Government grant.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Average public expenditure on home and other subsidised students in Great Britain in the 1980–81 academic year is about £4,350 per student. This figure excludes expenditure on student maintenance, student unions, research projects and capital building programmes. Public expenditure per student in later years will depend on the number of students admitted.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the Under-Secretary of State has just admitted that the impact of the Government's policy on overseas students' fees will reduce student income? Is he further aware that the demand for university places is 3 per cent. up for men and 6 per cent. up for women this coming year and is likely to increase in subsequent years? Does he accept that other countries will view with amazement the Government's intellectual vandalism in attacking our universities which are great international institutions, with an immense reputation in art, science, medicine and every other field of intellectual endeavour?

Mr. Carlisle: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is total nonsense. Under Governments of both parties our universities have seen sustained expansion and have been protected from the financial pressures experienced in other parts of the economy. In trying to achieve our overall expenditure targets, we decided that over the next three years it was necessary to reduce expenditure on universities by 3½ per cent. and expenditure on home students by up to 8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must remember that in two years' time the drop in the birth rate, which is now affecting secondary schools, will start to affect universities, so we cannot assume that they will continue to expand, as they have done up to this year.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that all our universities and colleges are strictly necessary? Could there not be some rationalisation?

Mr. Carlisle: As the Under-Secretary of State said, we do not intend to propose the closure of particular universities, but, if we are to make the necessary reductions in expenditure, they must be accompanied by rationalisation, which is why we have invited the University Grants Committee to approach the task in that way. I accept that it may mean the closure of some courses at certain universities.

Mr. Whitehead: In the light of the university cuts to be announced this month, will the Secretary of State give two undertakings? First, will he undertake that the cuts will not lead to a de facto system of three-tier universities, with the bottom tier cut off from research and reduced to second-class status? Will he also undertake that students who have been offered conditional places will be allowed to take them up in the next year? Will he comment on the remarks of the vice chancellor of Aston university, who said:
Concerned parents, prospective students and employers throughout the country can only expect fewer opportunities for entry, poorer academic facilities for study, and fewer graduates to help in solving the complex problems of today"?

Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question concerning the remarks of the vice chancellor, I shall willingly reply. However, they are slightly surprising, since Aston university's grant for the forthcoming academic year is not yet known to him. The University Grants Committee will produce figures towards the end of the month. [Interruption.] Recalling the papers that I saw at the time, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of students going to Aston last year had dropped, which shows that there were vacancies at the university when the vice chancellor made his statement.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman assurances on his other two questions until we see what the University Grants Committee recommends. If one accepts the overall policy of making reductions, it is better to do it in a way that preserves excellence, instead of making an across-the-board reduction in all universities.

Burgess Hill (Secondary School)

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in consideration of the requirement, through population growth,for a further secondary school in the Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath area.

Mr. Macfarlane: This is a matter for the West Sussex local education authority. My right hon. and learned Friend understands that the authority is currently discussing the acquisition of a suitable site in the Burgess Hill area, so that an additional secondary school could be built when the projected number of pupils has risen sufficiently.

Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Burgess Hill, far from there being a drop in the birth rate, there is a baby bulge, and that many young parents are deeply worried about the number of new houses being built without adequate provision being made for secondary school places? Will he, therefore, promise sympathetically to consider the urgent need for secondary schools when West Sussex next submits its capital expenditure plans?

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. and learned Friend will always sympathetically consider any baby bulge, but


so far we have had no proposal from the local authority. With the general trend of falling pupil rolls, each local authority has to consider the requirements in its area. Under section 12 of the Education Act 1980, a local education authority has to bid to the Department for capital resources. Until then, the Department of Education and Science has no standing in the matter, and no proposal has yet been made to the Department.

Nursery Schools

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of nursery school places now available in England and Wales in the maintained sector; and how this compares with each of the last five years:

Dr. Boyson: In January 1980, there were 47,000 full-time and 169,000, part-time pupils attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England. Compared with 1975, the overall total represents an increase of 56 per cent. The responsibility for nursery education in Wales lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Butcher: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on rapidly improving nursery provision in England and Wales? Do not the figures show that recent criticism—perhaps even hysteria—over lack of nursery provision is largely unfounded?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. The number of children in nursery classes increased by 5,200 between January 1979 and January 1980. We do not yet have figures for 1981.

Mr. Newens: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on nursery education? Does he believe that it should ultimately be provided for all children, and are the Government working to that end? Is this not an excellent opportunity to increase nursery education by using teachers and others who would otherwise be unemployed?

Dr. Boyson: The policy of the past three Governments has been to provide nursery education for children whose parents wanted it. Despite the limited resources, over the next three years money will be used to adapt redundant classrooms for nursery classes.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Cannot the need for nursery school places best be met by encouraging playgroup schemes?

Dr. Boyson: My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to playgroups, which, together with certain housing arrangements, have made excellent progress and have been areas of the greatest growth in voluntary self-help since the war. I thoroughly commend them to everyone.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer that it has been the policy of all Governments to ensure that nursery education is available for children of all parents who want it, as provision in different local authority areas varies enormously, and in many areas parents who would like nursery education for their children are denied it?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify my answer. It has been the aim of successive Governments to move towards the provision of nursery education for

children of all parents who want it, when resources are available, but there is always great demand on the resources of any Government.

Youth and Community Service

Mr. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effect the Government's policy of reducing public expenditure is having on the youth and community service.

Mr. Macfarlane: I ask the hon. Member to read the relevant paragraphs of the inspectorate report published in February this year. While many decisions are for local authorities, the Government's view is that expenditure on the youth service should not be reduced.

Mr. Foster: Has there not been a reduction in staffing of 15 to 20 per cent. in the youth and community service in recent years? How can the Minister justify such a reduction at a time of rising youth unemployment and crime, and at a time when Ministers are saying that voluntary effort will plug the gaps in the Welfare State? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that those people who have lost their jobs spent much time recruiting, training, supervising and organising volunteers, and supporting voluntary organisations?

Mr. Macfarlane: The last two rate support grant settlements have embodied the assumption that expenditure on youth and community services will be maintained. The hon. Gentleman may know of circumstances where posts have been withdrawn or where some reappraisal by individual local education authorities is taking place. This is very much a matter for each individual local education authority. The hon. Gentleman makes somewhat exaggerated claims about the Department of Education and Science. I must point out that the department's grant to the headquarters expenditure of the national voluntary youth organisations this year has been increased by 11·5 per cent. I would have thought that this was living testimony that the Government wished to see expenditure maintained.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome warmly the funds provided by my hon. Friend's Department for voluntary youth organisations. Will he not agree that the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme can play an increasingly important part in provision for young people? Does he further agree that the effort that is being made to assist those from deprived backgrounds and those who have committed crimes and are seeking to take their place again in the community is to be encouraged? What help can his Department provide towards this work?

Mr. Macfarlane: I support my hon. Friend's comments about the enormous contribution made by the type of activity he has mentioned. I would have thought that the increase provided by my Department to many bodies was some proof of our dedication towards ensuring that the youth area does not suffer. The support that we can give to the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme takes place at official level and through general support.

Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that in some counties, such as Northumberland, the youth and community service has been developed on the basis of close integration with the schools? If the closure of many rural middle schools, as proposed in yesterday's document, goes ahead, all that work will be thrown aside.

Mr. Macfarlane: I would have thought that local education authorities have to take all these aspects into consideration. They face the problem of falling rolls in each community area. Schools are not the only places that can provide facilities for young people. There are also village halls and premises in industrial areas that can prove a useful feature in the life of young people. It is a partnership between industry, commerce and those in the statutory sector of the education service.

Secondary Reorganisation (Manchester)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science from which organisations he has received deputations to discuss the current proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in Manchester.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: My noble Friend the Minister of State and I have both received deputations from the Campaign for the Retention of Eleven to Eighteen Schools in Manchester. I have told right hon. and hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies that I will give the Campaign for a Unified System of Education a similar opportunity to tell me its views. My noble Friend has met a deputation in respect of the High School of Art.

Mr. Marks: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to see the organisations supporting the education committee. I urge him to beware of solutions which would produce some schools catering for children between 11 and 18 and some for those aged between 11 and 16. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), once described the Spurley Hey High School in my constituency as a "sink" school. That was quite unjustified. However, if some schools have sixth forms while others do not have them, that situation could arise.

Mr. Carlisle: I am not prepared to comment on the Manchester proposals. In certain areas, there are schools for 11 to 16-year-olds and for 11 to 18-year-olds within the same local education authority.

Mr. Eastham: Will the Secretary of state acknowledge that a long debate dating back to 1979 has been taking place in the city of Manchester, where the problem of falling rolls is recognised? A decision by the Department of Education and Science is essential. Does he agree that there is a feeling among those concerned that the Secretary of State should take notice of democratic decisions reached by the city council?

Mr. Carlisle: I realise that this matter has been discussed for a long time. All sides to the dispute in Manchester accept that some changes have to be made. I shall make a decision as soon as I can. The proposals are extremely complicated. I have promised, in answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), that I will see a deputation of those supporting the proposals of the city council before making my decision.

Curriculum

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any evidence of secondary schools dropping subjects from the curriculum because of cuts in the educational budget.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Her Majesty's inspectors have reported some loss of subjects in certain schools but have pointed out that it is not possible to separate the effects of expenditure policies and the fall in pupil numbers.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Department monitor the situation closely in various local education authorities? Even when a teacher leaves and is not replaced because of falling rolls, the teacher could be a specialist in a particular subject. Is the Secretary of State aware that this means that a subject may be dropped from the curriculum? The falling rolls argument has to be considered along with cuts in the education budget.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is one of the reasons behind the circular that we issued yesterday trying to draw the attention of local authorities to the educational advantages of keeping schools of viable size going rather than retaining too many schools, all of them taking fewer pupils.

Mr. William Shelton: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the decline in student numbers is probably greater than any cuts in education budgets over the next few years and that there will, therefore, be a net increase in expenditure per pupil?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is right. This is a point I have made on many occasions. The reduction in expenditure that we seek is somewhat less than the reduction in the number of pupils.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is not only a question of some courses disappearing, but that another effect will be that other courses, which should be expanded in the national interest, such as mathematics and computer science, will not be capable of expansion because of the cuts? This applies not only in secondary schools, but also in polytechnics and universities. Does he realise that the result is that students are diverted into less desirable courses.

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that there is some value in what the hon. Gentleman says. The easiest way to avoid damage to the curriculum is by showing a willingness to review provision of education in an area to ensure adequate opportunities throughout the area instead of merely allowing individual schools and individual classes to get steadily smaller, when gaps in the curriculum inevitably start appearing.

Lecturers

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current strength of lecturers in (a) United Kingdom universities and (b) United Kingdom polytechnics; how this compares with their respective strengths in the 1979–80 academic year; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: In 1979–80 there were 34,250 full-time academic staff at United Kingdom universities and 17,395 full-time teaching staff at the polytechnics. Comparable figures for the current academic year are not yet available. However, for the polytechnics in England and Wales, there are 16,722 full-time teaching staff in the current academic year compared with 16,847 in 1979–80.

Mr. Winterton: Will not my hon. Friend agree that the picture is not as bleak as that painted by the Opposition and


some within the education profession? The ratio of lecturer to student in the universities is still far better than applies in most other Western countries. Will not he agree that there is room in higher education for the necessary expenditure cuts, particularly in the humanities, social sciences and allied courses, which seem to have no relevance to the real needs of the country?

Dr. Boyson: The student-staff ratio in universities is one of the lowest in the world. In universities there are only 9·3 students per member of staff. In polytechnics, there are only 8·5 students per member of staff. I believe that the figures this year may even be lower. I believe that there can be rationalisation of courses, so that the courses have full numbers. If there was one more student per member of staff, that would cover the whole 8½ per cent. cuts that we need over three years.

Mr. Hooley: Is it now the intention of the University Grants Committee to issue directives to universities to the effect that they must close certain departments to cut staff?

Dr. Boyson: The University Grants Committee gives advice, as it has always done. At a time of expansion, academics did not want to come under direct Government control. That is why the University Grants Committee was originally started. I believe it dates back to 1919. Similarly, at a time of cuts, I am sure that most academics—this has been indicated by vice-chancellors—would prefer decisions to be made by the University Grants Committee and not by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend say what the trend is in staff-student ratios over a longer period—perhaps up to 10 years? What proportion of the staff has security of tenure?

Dr. Boyson: The student-staff ratio has increased by 10 per cent. over the past 10 years. I suggested that a similar improvement in the number of students per member of staff over the coming years would meet the problem. I believe that about 80 or 90 per cent. of staff have tenure, often up to the age of 67. If one compares Britain with other countries, it appears that tenure is given more easily and at a lower level here than almost anywhere else in the world. The matter of tenure will have to be looked at by universities.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our staff in higher education will not be reassured until the Government make known their plans for the future financing and organisation of the public sector of higher education? Is he aware that it is now eight months since the Select Committee issued its report? When will the Government bring forward their plans for the organisation and financing of the public sector of higher education?

Dr. Boyson: I realise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are trying to control the maintained sector by means of some national body, and to do it by agreement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of that Select Committee, agrees that it is far better to do it by agreement with local authorities than to do it by forcing through legislation against the wishes of local authorities. If we get it right, it will be to everyone's advantage.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Under-Secretary realise that, if we have had satisfactory staff-student ratios in our

universities and polytechnics, that is something that we would expect the Department of Education and Science to defend, not destroy? Will he say, in connection with the UGC's proposals to universities, what it will cost in additional and wasteful public expenditure to buy out academic tenure in the way that he has threatened today?

Dr. Boyson: When I referred to tenure, I was talking about long-term tenure. The problem of tenure would have faced the Labour Party, had it been in power. It is a matter of not taking people on at too early an age or too low a level and giving them tenure until the age of 67. Decisions in that regard should be made by universities themselves freely. That compares favourably with the position in many other countries. People will not have vast sympathy, when they see the problems of unemployment elsewhere and find that these people have tenure of 40 years. After all, that tenure was given when there were small groups of dons in universities. We have 10 times as many students in higher education now as we had in 1945, and 10 times as many staff. Tenure was introduced originally to preserve academic excellence in research, which may not be being done everywhere now.

Teachers

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has given advice to local education authorities regarding the continued employment of unsatisfactory teachers in the light of the numbers of teachers in their employ suffering the impact of falling school rolls.

Mr. Macfarlane: No, Sir. It is for local education authorities to determine how far they can improve the quality of their teaching forces while reducing numbers.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has my hon. Friend noticed the comments that were made at the recent conference of the National Association of Head Teachers? Is it not unfortunately inevitable that where local authorities, such as Cheshire, require schools to take in first preference, when there are vacancies, teachers who are already available in other schools in the area, there may be an implication for standards? It is understandable that local authorities should assume that attitude, but should not serious consideration be given to the possibility that children's education may suffer as a result?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am certainly aware of the comments made by the National Association of Head Teachers, at whose annual conference my right hon. and learned Friend spoke a week or so ago. I hope that head teachers will take due note of their responsibilities in this respect. I remind my hon. Friend that it is primarily the duty of the local education authority to assess all these matters in conjunction with the head teacher.

Mr. Skinner: If the local authorities concerned have all the power that the Minister suggests, and if they put forward estimates based on what they need to staff their schools correctly, in accordance with what the Government suggest, will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that, if the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that they are spending too much money in this regard, he will stand by them when they try to spend that money in accordance with the policy put forward by him and several Education Ministers this afternoon?

Mr. Macfarlane: Once again, the hon. Gentleman's blind prejudice takes him down all sorts of paths. No hon. Member really follows him. If he wishes to table a question on those lines, no doubt he will do so.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending the CBI's annual dinner.

Mr. Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that 43 per cent. of our exports now go to the Common Market, that that share is increasing annually, and that, therefore, the Common Market is a major source of jobs for our nation? Will she use the forthcoming Presidency of the Council of Ministers to get across to the British public the contribution that our membership of the Common Market makes to the creation of jobs here?

The Prime Minister: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the important part which membership of the Community plays in providing jobs for people in the British economy.

Mr. Foot: In the light of some of the reports that have appeared about what may appear on the agenda of the Cabinet's crisis meeting tomorrow—[Interruption]. The crisis in British industry and the crisis of mass unemployment are on a scale that we have not seen for many years. Will the right hon. Lady give us a clear assurance that there will be no rejection at that Cabinet meeting of the proposals, made by Sir Peter Parker and the unions in the British railway industry, for major investment in the industry? Those proposals should be backed by the Government and the country. Will she assure us that there will be no rejection of those schemes until the House of Commons has had a chance to discuss them?

The Prime Minister: There is a Cabinet meeting tomorrow, but it is not a crisis Cabinet meeting. The discussion will be relevant and interesting. My right hon. Friends will express their minds freely.

Mr. Foot: We all understand about the right hon. Lady's right hon. Friends expressing their minds freely—I would not use the term myself, but she has used the term, "the wets". Will she give us a clear assurance that there will be no Government decision on the investment scheme for British Rail until all hon. Members in the House of Commons, "wets" and "drys", have had a chance to put their case?

The Prime Minister: I can give the right hon. Gentleman no such assurance. The external financing limit for British Railways this year is higher in real terms than it was last year. We are providing £920 million to finance British Rail this year—which is more than 1p on income tax for everyone in the country.

Mr. Eggar: Will my right hon. Friend have time today to consider early-day motion 455, which is signed by 111

of her right hon. and hon. Friends and looks forward to a further decrease in the nationalised industries sector? Can she confirm that this remains a major priority for her Government?

The Prime Minister: I have seen that early-day motion, and I congratulate my hon. friend on it. I assure him that my objectives are identical with his.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, although her right hon. Friends are free to speak their minds at the Cabinet tomorrow, the fact that all the press reports say that the monetarists will win does not mean that they are not also free to take decisions tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: Decisions are taken by the Cabinet as a whole, and not by individual members.

Ports Industry

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Prime Minister whether she will propose a Royal Commission to investigate the future of the ports industry.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the ports industry about what the future holds? Is she further aware that that uncertainty extends not only to those working in the industry but to the many hundreds of thousands who rely for their livelihoods on a succesful ports industry? Does not she think that there is a case for a cool, dispassionate look at the future of the British ports industry?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There are problems in some of the ports. There would be fewer problems and more prosperity if there were fewer strikes.

Mr. Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from needing a Royal Commission, many of the Channel ports have already suffered from an exhaustive inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which has delayed the merger of the loss-making British Rail hovercraft operation with the succesful private enterprise operation, Hoverlloyd? Now that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has reported, will she use her influence to ensure that the merger is delayed no further by Government intervention?

The Prime Minister: I shall see what I can do. I am anxious that all private enterprise ventures that would create new wealth and new jobs for Britain should be allowed to go ahead as soon as possible.

Engagements

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister turn her mind once again to the question of unemployment? Will she accept that, if there is no crisis in the Cabinet, there should be? If she says that there is no crisis she should look outside the Cabinet because there is a deep crisis about unemployment throughout Britain. Did she think that 250,000 people would be on the streets in the march for jobs if there were not a deep crisis? I come from a steel


city. Will she accept from me that, as we marched through Sheffield, factory after factory had signs saying "To Let"? Is she aware that workers in Sheffield expect to be sacked almost any day, and that almost every day there are sackings and closures? Is not that a crisis?

The Prime Minister: There is no crisis in the Cabinet, although there may be a crisis in the Labour Party. On the serious matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, I agree that there are great difficulties and problems with unemployment. However, they will not be solved by marches. They might be solved if everyone in Britain bought more British goods if the goods are up to standard, and if we sell more British goods overseas. That is the only way to increase jobs. We shall not do so by ranting about it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Following the success of British industry at the Paris air show, will my right hon. Friend find time to write to the president of the Society of British Aerospace Companies to congratulate him on the part that member companies play in the success story of British aerospace, especially British Aerospace and Short Brothers?

The Prime Minister: I am always delighted to congratulate those who are obtaining major export orders, because that is where the jobs are created. I have done a little selling myself to help British Aerospace.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has the Prime Minister read this morning's report that, in certain circumstances, the 42 American Polaris submarines can launch their nuclear missiles without permission from headquarters? [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper?"]. The Daily Telegraph. Does that policy apply to the four British Polaris submarines?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what appeared in the press. The British Polaris submarines are firmly under our control.

Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Home Secretary's speech on Sunday about possible political control of the police for London and Manchester? Will she make clear her absolute condemnation of such measures?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I shall do so gladly. Political control of the police would be disastrous for the rule of law. They must remain independent. I am happy to remind the House that, by statute, control of the Metropolitan Police lies with the Home Secretary, and that is a good thing.

Mr. Meacher: On the question of the special Cabinet meeting, will the Prime Minister reconsider whether it makes sense to demand further major public expenditure cuts that will simply increase unemployment, which will then increase spending on unemployment, which will lead to further demands for public expenditure cuts? With the upturn in inflation that is now taking place, is it not obvious to everyone—even to the right hon. Lady—that her economic policies are getting the worst of both worlds, with both higher inflation and higher unemployment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Over the years, and certainly since the 1960s, the proportion of national income taken by public expenditure has risen steadily, and so has unemployment.

Correspondence

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Prime Minister how many letters she has received from members of the general public since May 1979.

The Prime Minister: Some 320,000.

Mr. Taylor: What proportion of that enormous mailbag related to crime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current escalation of violence and vandalism and the desperately overcrowded prisons have created a position in which greater priority should be given to the battle against crime?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise proportion of letters relating to crime. During the past month about 500 letters out of a total of 16,000 were concerned with increasing crime, violence and vandalism. The extent of the Government's concern about the problem is shown by the fact that since we returned to power the number of policemen in England and Wales has increased by 6,000, by 600 in Scotland and by 700 in Northern Ireland. We put priority on law and order, and we were right to do so.

Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that a large proportion of the 320,000 letters expressed opposition to nuclear weapons? Is not the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence to employ public relations consultants to mount a campaign for nuclear weapons an indication of the enormous success of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which was also reflected in last week's decision by NALGO to vote against nuclear weapons for Britain?
Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the public relations consultants will not engage in the lies indulged in by Saatchi and Saatchi at the last general election, and try to pretend that nuclear weapons are safe? The only sure defence is to get rid of them.

The Prime Minister: There was not a large proportion of letters about nuclear weapons. We receive such letters when there is a lobby on that matter from time to time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence does not need any public relations expert to put forward his views on defence—as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened thoroughly to the absolutely superb speech made by my right hon. Friend from the Dispatch Box during the debate on the Defence White Paper. The only security for a nation lies in its being prepared to defend itself and deter an aggressor. For these reasons, we need nuclear weapons.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend reassure those who have written to her about the unacceptable burdens on the British consumer of the common agricultural policy that she is seeking radical reforms of that policy? Will she say in which areas those reforms should take place?

The Prime Minister: We are most certainly seeking radical reform by a reduction of the enormous surpluses that take such a large proportion of the budget. We shall continue to seek that reform, both for its own sake and also as a necessity before we can reform the budget structure of the Community.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Prime Minister received much correspondence about the ITN production last week "The Silent Minority" which dealt with the tragic


position of the mentally handicapped? It showed major deficiencies in public expenditure. What does she intend to do about that?

The Prime Minister: Not to my knowledge. I saw a good deal of publicity about it, if, as I think, the hon. Gentleman and I are talking about the same thing. Speaking as a Member who has a very large mental hospital in her constituency, I can only say that I admire very much the wonderful work done by the vast majority of doctors and nurses who serve in those hospitals.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend indicate how many of the letters out of the massive correspondence she has received have been on the subject

of the need by the Government to introduce further industrial relations legislation, particularly relating to the closed shop, the secret ballot and secondary action? I ask this question bearing in mind that she is addressing the CBI at its annual dinner this evening. I hope that she can give the CBI some reassurance.

The Prime Minister: When we get an example such as that of Joanna Harris, and other well-known cases, we get a large amount of correspondence, as we would expect, because such a case is contrary to the fundamental liberty of the individual. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is receiving many representations about the Green Paper and it is quite on the cards that we may have more legislation next Session.

European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on 15 June, which I attended accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The Council was mainly concerned with business outstanding from last April's price settlement. I recalled to the Council the undertaking that I had received from the Commission at the time of the price fixing that clawback on sheepmeat would be calculated to take account of the price of export quality sheepmeat. The Commission had undertaken to put a proposal in this sense to the Management Committee but had not yet done so. There was no doubt in my mind that this could be done in a perfectly legal way, and I pressed the President of the Commission, Mr. Thorn, to make a proposal as soon as possible. Mr. Thorn promised to put a well-balanced proposal to his colleagues in the Commission at once. In the meantime, I have maintained a United Kingdom reserve on other parts of the price fixing.
On other matters connected with the price fixing, the Greek quota on iso-glucose was reduced from the Commission proposal of 16,500 tonnes to 13,000, to bring it more into line with that prevailing in other member States. No agreement was reached on the transport and storage subsidies for sugar from the French overseas territories.
Progress on the question of controlling the use of hormones in animal husbandry and medicine was again blocked by one member State.
A preliminary discussion was held on a Community support system for cotton, but no decisions were taken.

Mr. Roy Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I hope that he will continue to oppose the use of synthetic hormones in animals for human consumption.
Secondly, assuming that the right hon. Gentleman vetoes the finalisation of sugar prices in order to get a better clawback price for our sheepmeat exporters, can he tell us what effect the projected sugar price levels will have on the future of the African-Caribbean-Pacific cane sugar producers?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Common Market sheepmeat regime, of which he boasted to the House when it was negotiated last year, has been disastrous for our sheepmeat exporters? They have suffered a loss of 50 per cent. in their export trade with Western Europe. Some companies are said to have gone bankrupt because of it, and on the operation of the deal the French seem to have beaten him again. Therefore, can he say what the prospects are for a satisfactory settlement for our traders at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, and how he proposes to compensate those who have suffered a severe loss in trade, even to the extent of bankruptcy, as a result of his bad deal with the EEC?

Mr. Walker: On the question of the use of hormones, there was agreement by all the member States that the use in animals of the substances known as stilbenes and thyrostatic substances should be banned, but, alas, this

was not agreed to, because of a reserve by the French Government on the issue. However, I hope that shortly there will be an agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to sugar prices. There is no disagreement on the price that will be paid to the ACP countries, but at the moment discussions are still taking place about meeting the transport costs of ACP countries for cane sugar. The Commission is reporting on the matter and I hope that that report will be completed in the near future.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the sheepmeat regime. I know that throughout the negotiations he was highly sceptical of our ever reaching an agreement. I hope, however, that he recognises that the agreement provides British sheep producers with the best guaranteed returns that they have had for years, and provides the British housewife with the cheapest lamb that she has had for years.
In terms of the export effects of the regime, in the Council of Ministers we decided, when the regime was agreed, to review it in March this year. That was a perfectly valid and sensible agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because I pointed it out to him, just before Christmas our exports of sheepmeat to the Continent were higher than they had been prior to the regime being in force. Our exports have fluctuated since, and adjustments need to be made. We have already obtained two major adjustments, and I believe that as a result of our negotiating position we will obtain a third major adjustment in the near future.

Sir Paul Bryan: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to raise the question of the threat of the French subsidised turkey industry to our turkey industry? If not, when does he think that he will have such an opportunity?

Mr. Walker: I have already had detailed correspondence and discussion about this matter with the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Dalsager. Unfortunately, he has been taken ill and will not be returning to his duties, probably, until the end of next month. But I have been promised by his office a detailed reply and observation on the points that I have raised, and I thought it right to continue my negotiation with the Commissioner who will be in charge of these affairs. Obviously, I hope that quick decisions will be made.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for trying to solve the problems of our meat exporters. Can he clarify what is meant by the "well-balanced proposal" by Mr. Thorn? Which country blocked progress towards agreement on animal husbandry? Finally, will the Council of Ministers discuss the marginal land survey at its next meeting?

Mr. Walker: We hope that the marginal land survey will be completed by October. When it is completed, we will participate in the discussions on how to treat its results.
The agreement on the use of hormones in animal husbandry was blocked by France alone. The French stated that the new Government wished to have more time to consider the matter. I hope that progress will be made at the next meeting.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what Mr. Thorn meant by his "well-balanced proposal". That question should be


put to him rather than to me. We have made clear to the Commission what we consider to be a well-balanced proposal, which is a substantial reduction in the clawback for our sheep exporters.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall be able to call all those who have already risen before we move on to the next business.

Mr. Robert Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, which is a large agricultural area, there is still no lack of support for our membership of the EEC and for working the common agricultural policy? What I am finding increasingly difficult is to obtain acceptance of the fact that not all members of the Community play by the rules, and the question of turkey subsidisation outside the Commission's rules, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), is something that really sticks in the gullet. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I choose my words very carefully. It does rather stick in the crop. Will my right hon. Friend take the gloves off soon and fight for all members of the Community to abide by the rules?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I think that there is no way in which one can have a common agricultural policy and a free movement of agricultural produce across the frontiers of Europe if any one country perverts the fairness of competition by substantial national aids. For an industry like the poultry industry, which can expand very quickly and take a major share of anyone's market, such a situation would be intolerable. We have made this clear to the Commission and we hope that it will accept its responsibilities and act swiftly and effectively.

Mr. David Stoddart: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in which he criticised the CAP and said that farmers are getting far too much benefit? Does he agree with that statement? What measures is he taking urgently to achieve a reformation of the CAP, if not its abolition?

Mr. Walker: One important reform that has taken place in the lifetime of the Government is that the CAP is taking not over 80 per cent. of the European budget but 69 per cent.—and it is a declining take.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he is taking, but will he bear in mind that the problem is having a serious effect on slaughterhouses in the South-West and elsewhere? Will he inform the French Minister of Agriculture that enough is enough and that in future we may have to take serious steps to stop French exports of produce into Britain if the French do not allow us to export our agricultural products into France?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will know that the effect of the clawback is not primarily in the French market. In fact, we are exporting more lamb to France than prior to the regime coming into operation. The importance of the clawback lies in our traditional markets in Germany, Holland and Belgium. We are not asking for the elimination of the clawback, which would be wrong in principle. We are merely asking for a proper consideration of the export value of lamb, and this request has been

agreed to by the Commission. It was agreed to by the Council of Ministers at the time of the price fixing. All that we are demanding is that both the Council and the Commission adhere to the undertakings that they gave in April.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: What calculation has the right hon. Gentleman made of the effect upon the level of British exports of lamb if the Community accepts his clawback proposals? What calculations has he made also of the impact of the acceptance of the proposal upon the level of French prices? Notwithstanding what he has said, it appears that it is still the French who are opposed to the proposals. Finally, why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that this is an issue that can be settled by the Management Committee? The French appear to be arguing that it is an issue that will have to be ratified by the Council, with their agreement.

Mr. Walker: It is an issue that involves an adjustment of a management formula, and the Commission and the Presidency agree that it is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Management Committee. When we obtained the price fixing, as part of the overall agreement it was recognised that it was a proposal that the Commission would put to the Management Committee. We knew, therefore, that it was a proposal to be decided upon a majority vote and not upon the power of veto. Therefore, we agreed to a price package that included a reference to the Management Committee. Our view that it is a matter for the Committee is supported by many other member States.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: During his discussions, did my right hon. Friend have any opportunity to take up the reports that large quantities of wine from the EEC have been sold to Russia at discount prices? As the cost of the wine was paid for in part by the British Government, will he take up the matter as one of some urgency, if he has not had the opportunity to do so previously, to ensure that the Russians cease forthwith to obtain the benefits of EEC wines?

Mr. Walker: That is a matter that we have already taken up with the Commission. I shall keep my hon. Friend informed of the progress that is made.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that has been made in controlling poultrymeat imports into Britain, bearing in mind inspection standards in France? He will recall that several weeks ago he gave assurances to the House. The matter is one of continuing concern. Has the Minister reached a position in which he feels that it will be necessary to take unilateral action against such imports?

Mr. Walker: I shall be discussing with the poultry industry later this week or early next week the importance of achieving a balance, so that there are equal standards on both sides. I shall discuss with the industry ways in which that balance can be achieved.

Mr. John Carlisle: When my right hon. Friend met the Council of Ministers, did he discuss with it the real difficulties that the agriculture trade now faces because of the non-payment of restitutions and MCAs? Is he aware that the difficulty caused by the Civil Service strike could lead to the suspension of our exports of grain to Poland?

Mr. Walker: No. This was not a matter for the Commission. It is a domestic matter for the United Kingdom. There is a real problem for both the agriculture trade and the farming community, which are not receiving VAT rebates, intervention board payments and the grants that should be paid to them. I hope that the difficulties will be settled quickly by means of speedy organisation, so that we avoid great damage being done to our export trade and to small businesses.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the decisions on sugar mean that there will be less dumping of subsidised sugar on the world market, which causes so much damage to the poorest countries in the world? Secondly, is it not right that only last month some of the restrictions on the sale of food and wine to Russia, which cost us a subsidy of £9 million for wine alone last year, were removed and not strengthened?

Mr. Walker: These are matters that are constantly reviewed by the Management Committee. As for my hon. Friend's first question, I am not sure in which way he is arguing. He used to argue that it was monstrous that British consumers were having to pay more. He will know that last year British consumers paid less for sugar, as a result of the Community's sugar agreement. The future for sugar will depend on world sugar price trends. My hon. Friend will know well from his usual consumer arguments that there was considerable stability in sugar prices last year, as a result of having a common sugar regime in Europe.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend protect the British consumer from French turkeys that are fed on cancer-inducing agents, which are forbidden as feed in Britain? There is reason to believe that such substances are being fed to French turkeys in Brittany. Will my right hon. Friend protect our consumers by the exercise of his powers to prevent the import of food that may be a danger to health?

Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on that specific issue. If my hon. Friend gives me details, either from France or from anywhere else, of any feeding of animals or poultry that is a danger to health in Britain, they will be speedily examined. I can assure my hon. Friend that such are our stringent health precautions that any measure that is taken by any other country that has an adverse effect on the quality of food and an impact on health in Britain will be dealt with strictly and severely.

Mr. Tony Marlow:: At a meeting with farmers in Northampton on Friday their main concern was unfair competition from other Community countries—not only French turkeys, we have been told, but cheap loans and direct support for French agriculture by the French Government. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what state all these situations are in at the moment, and if the Commission does not come up with a satisfactory solution what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Walker: About £430 million was injected into French agriculture by the French Government some weeks before the French election. A number of the measures within that national aid were, in the view of the British Government, not in compliance with the Treaty of Rome. The Commission has taken action against the French Government and is currently obtaining details of the aids. It has undertaken to the United Kingdom that it will take appropriate action. That is the state of play on French national aids. I confirm to my hon. Friend that we cannot continue with a common agricultural policy if any one member State decides to ensure that it shall enjoy an unfair advantage over other countries through substantial State aids.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only he would have the brass neck to present the negotiation of a Common Market regime that prevents exports of British lamb to the Continent as a victory for Britain? How can he describe the damage that he has done to British lamb exports as a fluctuation? Will he face the seriousness of the issue?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is so wrong on this issue so frequently that I welcome his further intervention from the Dispatch Box. I remember his advancing the same argument prior to Christmas, and subsequently trade increased substantially. He has returned to the argument now that trade has decreased. We have a positive export subsidy on our exports to third countries as a result of arrangements that I made. We have a premium on virtually all the exports that we make to the Continent. Our exports to France have increased substantially. It is our trade with Belgium, Germany and Holland that has currently decreased. If we obtain the adjustment that has been promised by the Commission, that, too, will be changed. It is time that the hon. Gentleman, who failed so miserably in this sphere, applauded a system that has given so much security to British sheep producers.

National Coal Board (Finance)

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the National Coal Board's finances. As I have previously undertaken, I wish to keep the House fully informed of what is happening in the coal industry.
The board's requirement for external finance in the financial year 1980–81 was £884 million—£52 million more than the limit of £832 million announced in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) on 12 December. The board's announced external financing limit for 1981–82 of £886 million will be raised to £1,117 million. The funds will be found from the contingency reserve within the planned totals of public expenditure.
I shall be bringing forward legislation in future to increase the existing statutory limit on the board's borrowing and to allow continuing grant support for its operations and revenues. Meanwhile, I shall continue to make advances to the board out of the national loans fund.
Subject to the approval of Parliament, I propose to increase the amount of grants made available to the board in this financial year within the revised external financing limit. I will bring before Parliament shortly an order under the Coal Industry Act 1980 to increase the limit under section 4 of that Act of grants payable to the board from £525 million to £590 million. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit of Class IV, Vote 5 will be increased by £70 million. I will also bring before Parliament, under the same Act, an order to increase the board's borrowing limit from £3,400 million to £4,200 million.
When I saw the board and mining unions this morning in a tripartite discussion I reviewed progress over the past four months and outlined my intentions. It was agreed that this would provide a satisfactory basis for further progress.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I should like to ask about the figures announced by the Government, which mark a great change of attitude since the Minister's first approach to the matter in early February.
Is the Minister aware that the policy that is now being followed—whatever the argument about amounts—is a victory for common sense over a too-logical Treasury view about the public sector borrowing requirement? When one considers the activities of the National Coal Board one realises that there is no doubt that the private sector will benefit greatly from the expenditure by the National Coal Board.
Will the Minster assure the House that the package will enable the "Plan for Coal", which has been so well supported by the miners and the National Coal Board, to proceed unconstrained by financial limitation? [Interruption.] The "Plan for Coal" has been supported by increased productivity, and I have never known a Government yet who dig coal. What output do they project by 1985? The cash limit has been increased by £231 million. Is the Minister aware that, given the economic situation, it is our view that the figure is too low? It can be only a first step towards ensuring the future success of the "Plan for Coal".
Are the Government and the NCB in agreement on how much the cash limits were breached last year? The figure given is £52 million. What is the relevance of an increase

from £3,400 million to £4,200 million in the borrowing limit—that is a large amount—to the actual figure of a £231 million increase in the EFL for this yeas? An important aspect is the grant support, because it is basically what the argument was about a few months ago. We shall have a chance to return to that matter when we consider the legislation.
The way in which the figures are cast is not clear. That may arise out of their nature. They seem to add up to a £135 million increase, yet all the talk since the meetings this morning has been of an increase of £300 million. The two figures do not match. What is the total extra amount that will go to the National Coal Board?
Three months ago, the arguments were about National Coal Board expenditure for reducing imports, and expenditure to allow pit closures to go back to their normal fashion, through the usual consultative procedure, and also to deal with coal stocks. Will the extra money that the Government have provided enable the commitment made in February to be carried out?
One matter has been brought to my notice only this afternoon. Will the increase enable the expansion of new coal output in the Vale of Belvoir to continue? Overall, with regard to grants, does the Minister agree with me that the figures leave no room for margins or contingencies? Will he assure the House that in future the Government will reassess the situation in the coal industry on the basis of his approach today and not on the basis of his approach in February?

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman asked a considerable number of questions. I shall try to answer them all, but if I omit one I hope that he will understand.
The increase in the board's external financing limit is £231 million. That is the measure of the impact on the Exchequer. Within the total, the amount available for grant has been increased by £300 million. That includes social grant. It provides room for honouring the pledges that I gave to the House and to the industry in February and for the industry to proceed in a way consistent with the "Plan for Coal" and with a healthy level of investment.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the figure was too low. That view was not expressed by the unions and the board when I met them this morning. They recognised that this package provides a tight and challenging financial regime, but it is one in which the industry's future healthy progress can be maintained. It is in the interests of the nation as a whole that there should be a healthy and competitive coal industry. The basis on which the "Plan for Coal" was cast was that there should be high investment in modern competitive capacity and that, as in any extractive industry, uncompetitive and old capacity should be closed. That is how an industry such as this one lives and progresses.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Belvoir inquiry. The inspectors' report is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is a major issue of considerable importance and complexity, and I believe that it is right that the Government should have sufficient time to consider it. That is the current position.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about last year's EFL. The Government and the board are in agreement that that overran. The overrun is the cash figure


that I stated today. Part of the overrun arises from the fact that the board has not received a VAT refund. I hope that that answers all the right hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to allow questions on the statement to run until 4·20 pm, which should allow all those hon. Members who wish to speak to do so, provided that questions are brief.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I welcome this support for the coal industry, which is one of Britain's most vital industries, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to improve coal sales and that the weakening of the oil price will inevitably have an effect? Will he therefore have urgent discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the possibility of extending the scheme announced in the Budget to provide inducements for those who switch from oil to coal to include those who switch from gas to coal?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about coal sales. It is vital to increase coal sales, to reduce costs, and to increase efficiency. It is in that context that the financial arrangements make sense and will provide a realistic objective for the industry. My hon. Friend should know that this year it is planned to double the exports of British coal. Markets are opening up for British coal right across Europe, from Finland to Romania, opening up a path for the future for competitive coal sales that will greatly benefit a competitive coal industry.
As to increasing the demand for coal by improving facilities in industry, there is the boiler conversion scheme announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I understand that the rules for that have now been set out and that there is considerable interest in it. Already 800 inquiries have been received about how to make use of it. I think that that is a good start and that we should leave the matter there for the moment.

Mr. John Morris: What are the current prospects for development of the Margam coalfield in South Wales? Are the limits sufficiently large to allow a commencement to be made on that? Is the Minister aware of the importance of this development for industrial relations throughout the industry in South Wales, in that it would help any change in the industry, provide hundreds of jobs, and greatly boost an area that is so scarred by Government policies?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the importance of that development. The question of individual pits, however, is a matter for the National Coal Board. The right hon. and learned Member should therefore address his question to the board.

Mr. John Hannam: In view of the sharp rundown in demand for coal, which began last autumn, how much of the £231 million increase in EFL is accounted for by increased aid towards the cost of the increased stocking of coal that is taking place?

Mr. Howell: I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise breakdown of the figures. He is right in saying that the serious problems created by the collapse of demand for coal last autumn provided the background against which it has been necessary to review the financial arrangements.

It is that, combined with the Government's intention to honour the commitments that I gave to the industry in February, which provides the basis for the figures today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that against a background of recession, massive unemployment, and the rundown of factories that hitherto may have burnt coal, the £231 million is little more than cosmetic and will do little to resolve the problems of the industry, given the 40 million tonnes of coal now in stock? Does he appreciate that if the coal industry is to become leaner and fitter, to use the words so often used by the Prime Minister, we must ensure that coal is bought in far greater quantities than it is at present?
How will this measure reduce the amount of imports? How will it increase exports, which are slightly on the upswing at present? What attempts will be made to run down the amount of opencast coal extraction, which is 2 million tonnes more than in the previous year?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a time limit. He must be fair to other hon. Members.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment has sat on the Vale of Belvoir inquiry report since last November, which is longer than the inquiry took?

Mr. Howell: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that the mining industry understands, first, that a doubling of coal exports can scarcely be described as a slight upswing. Secondly, I am amazed that he should dismiss as cosmetic these very substantial figures, providing a major tranche of investment in modern capacity and in pits producing profitable coal. That is an insult to the industry and to the commitment to the industry of many thousands of people in it. As to the major investment for the future, this means not only substantial orders for mining equipment but prospects for providing coal at competitive prices on home and overseas markets on an increasing scale. That is the kind of future to which the industry has given its support. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to do the same.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the Government's financial commitment to the future of this vital industry. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House or provide figures later showing what exactly have been the increases in productivity that have helped to make this possible? Secondly, does he still have a commitment from both sides of the industry this morning that the uneconomic pits will be run down at an appropriate rate?

Mr. Howell: The productivity increase is now running at 3 per cent. per year. It was agreed in February that the accelerated closure programme in relation to uneconomic pits should be withdrawn, but good progress is being made in relation to closures on the basis of the established consultative machinery. This is a necessary part of an industry that is investing massively in new capacity. The other side of the coin must be, as it was from the start in the"Plan for Coal", that there should be closures to enable competitive coal to be produced and new jobs to be provided for people in the industry.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister agree that investment in the industry needs to be matched by reinvestment by the Central Electricity


Generating Board in coal-fired generation instead of the constant search for green field sites for nuclear power stations?

Mr. Howell: We already have one of the highest coal burns for electricity generation in the world. There is no doubt that if coal prices are competitive industry will take the opportunities provided by the latest Government grant scheme and invest in coal-burning equipment to replace higher-priced oil-burning equipment. The price incentive is there, but those using coal will need reassurance that there will he regular supplies of coal for them to convert and use for raising steam in industry.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that the trilogy of the National Coal Board, the British Steel Corporation and BL are costing the taxpayer £2·4 billion every year? That is roughly equivalent to the total sum spent on primary education or the total yield of petroleum revenue tax last year. When shall we stop having one system of economics for the coal miners and an entirely different one for the rest of the country?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend's summation of the trilogy of those three industries brings home clearly the vital need to ensure the health and finances of our nationalised industries so that the burden on the taxpayer and on public finances is minimised. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The coal industry, however, is a major potentially profitable energy industry for the future, provided that we can produce competitive coal and invest not in madcap schemes but in profitable, high-pay-back coal mining developments. If that investment is maintained, there is the prospect of a vital key industry for wealth creation in the future.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that even more effective use could be made of our coal resources by developing the processes of gasification and producing petrol from coal? What steps is he taking to speed up work on those two processes, particularly in Scotland?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced the other day the support that the Government will give towards the liquefaction process development at Point of Ayr. I hope that the NCB will be succesful in obtaining the support of private enterprise and other parts of industry in a development of that kind.
Research on gasification is very well advanced in this country, but at present the economics still lie over the horizon of reality. It is estimated that the cost of synthetic natural gas would be considerably higher than any currently available or projected prices for fuels or gas. The time will come, however, when those economics may change. By that time we shall have done the necessary advanced research and have the technology well under control.

Mr. Tom Ellis: What does the Secretary of State estimate will be the effect upon the NCB's borrowing requirement of the biggest commodity surplus in the Community—the British coal mountain—not only in terms of the cost of stockpiling, allowance for degradation, and so on, but in terms of loss of revenue to the NCB? Dees he agree that this amounts to virtually the whole of the external financing requirement for the 12-month period, but that it is nevertheless better to

proceed along the lines that he has suggested than to adopt the pre-war practice of putting the pits on a one- or two-day working week?

Mr. Howell: I cannot give the hon. Member a precise breakdown of the cost of stocks or the difference between the cost of stocks at the pithead and the cost of stocks at power stations, but I reaffirm what I said at the beginning, namely, that the additional cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer of the EFL that I have announced today is £231 million.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be widely welcomed, especially in regard to his success in getting the agreement of both the NCB and the NUM? What assurances can he give us that the additional taxpayers' funds being given will go into profitable investment in new modern pits rather than into increasing wage levels?

Mr. Howell: It is absolutely central to the interests of the future of the industry that investment should continue at a high level, and that operating costs are organised with the maximum efficiency. If that is achieved, we shall have competitive coal. It will not only dominate the British market but go overseas, and produce new jobs and high profits for the British economy. It rests with the industry to maintain an efficient system to ensure that high investment is maintained, costs are reduced, and efficiency raised at every point.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Secretary of State agree that our coal reserves are one of our greatest economic assets and that his statement justifies the action taken by the NUM, and by the South Wales miners in particular, in making him have second thoughts on the cash limits? Will he now look at some of the projects that were put forward by the National Coal Board on the occasion of the previous cash limits, and consider again such things as the Phurnacite project at Aberdare for producing smokeless fuel?

Mr. Howell: My statement reflects the needs of the coal industry and the appropriate financial arrangements against the background of a collapse in demand that the industry faced, together with many other industries, last autumn and during the recession last year. It also reflects the need to honour the commitments that the Government made in February. In the light of that, the prospects for the industry, providing it reduces costs, are good in the longer term. But in the immediate future there is bound to be some continuing slack in the market and continuing difficulties. These problems will not be solved overnight.

Mr. Hal Miller: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether any of this additional money is to assist coal in competing with imports? If that is the case, will he look again at the possibility of using some of that additional money for helping the foundry coke industry, where there is grave difficulties at present?

Mr. Howell: I have already told the House that the Government are looking very seriously at the price of foundry coke and the difficulties there. I have already explained that to one of my hon. Friends.
There is no administrative ban or control on coal imports, but the commitment was made that the National Coal Board would have the funds to back out imports to


some of its major customers, such as the CEGB and the BSC, and move towards an irreducible minimum. Progress in that direction has been made.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the NCB and the NUM will be thankful for this moderate increase in borrowing power and grant? If, in the two years to 1982, the increase is to rise to £4,200 million, it is worth noting that that is the figure in section 1 of the Coal Industry Act 1980. Is the figure to be above that level? If so, does it mean that the action of the NUM has knocked the Coal Industry Act for six?

Mr. Howell: In my opening statement I explained what changes would be made under the existing coal industry legislation, but I also made it clear that there would be new coal industry legislation in the future. Indeed, when the Coal Industry Bill was going through the House it was always envisaged that there would be a need for further legislation in due course and the events of last autumn, particularly the collapse of the coal market, have accelerated the timing.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that by any standards this is an increase of the commitment of the taxpayer to the coal industry? When he was having discussions with the unions and with the NCB, did he seek an assurance that the money would not be used to increase wages, and that there would be no question of a further increase in the year up to 1982 in order to meet an extravagant wage claim?

Mr. Howell: The principles to which my hon. Friend refers are those that must apply to all industries, and particularly to nationalised industries, where it is vital that maximum efficiency and maximum achievement in labour unit costs are obtained. It is the Government's declared aim and determination, through the operation of the external financing limits and their tight application, to see that costs are reduced and that efficiency is increased. At the heart of that lies the need to limit the growth of labour costs. If we do not do that we shall destroy jobs, destroy competition and destroy the prospects of our working people.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that what he has done clearly indicates that one cannot operate an extractive industry of the nature of the coal industry within the rigidity of external financial limits? He has given us a battery of figures of a financial mix. Will he set them against the output, sale and employment targets envisaged for the industry in the period under discussion?

Mr. Howell: I accept that a deep recession makes major difficulties for any industry, particularly the gigantic nationalised industries of the size and complexity of our coal industry. That is the reality. But that does not mean that it is not equally necessary to ensure that there are strict and closely observed external financing limits, because they provide the discipline for reducing costs and increasing efficiency that is necessary in these industries and is not always provided by the market as it should be.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Now that the Government have made clear their commitment to the project for extracting oil from coal at Point of Ayr, will

my right hon. Friend confirm that it is up to the NCB to reduce its commitment in order to raise the necessary finance from private sources?

Mr. Howell: It is, indeed, up to the NCB, and I hope that it will be successful in building on the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy when he made his statement the other day. Naturally, I hope that the project will go forward.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he feels that the Government will ever be able to bring down the PSBR to a satisfactory level while we go on increasing subsidies to nationalised industries? In view of the latest round of grants, does he agree that there is no case in the next wage round for the miners to be paid a higher wage increase than industry generally, as happened in the last wage round, which now has to be funded by the taxpayer?

Mr. Howell: As I have said several times, it is absolutely essential for the competitive health of the economy—and the coal industry cannot escape from economic reality—that costs are kept to a minimum, so that the competitive cost of coal is minimised, and so that we sell as much coal as possible over as wide a number of markets as possible. We have a world to compete against. The world does not owe us a living, and if our costs are too high we shall not sell our products.

Mr. John Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that private industry does not share his faith in the ability of the NCB to control its finances? It is a matter of considerable concern to private industry that once more it is being asked to shell out money by way of taxes in order to keep going an industry which, as a matter of economic sense, should start selling the vast stocks that it has built up and that nobody wants to buy because the price is too high. Can we now see the exercise to make industry leaner and fitter applied to all the nationalised industries?

Mr. Howell: I am answering questions only about the coal industry. However, that must be the objective and the aim. It is worth remembering that a high rate of investment in very profitable coal mining—although it happens to be in the public sector—is worth while in terms of sheer return and provides substantial custom for our advanced and successful mining machinery and equipment industries, which are world beaters.

Mr. Speaker: As only two hon. Members are waiting to ask questions, I shall call them both.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's emphasis on the coal industry's bright future, will he lose no opportunity to stress to those who work in the industry that £74 million will go down the drain this year on old pits that it had been hoped to close? Will he emphasise that a far brighter future and better working conditions are available for the 13,000 miners who work in the pits, if they transfer? Will he do everything to encourage that transfer and the consequent brighter future?

Mr. Howell: I cannot confirm the figure that my hon. Friend gave, but his sentiments are right. As I have warned, the period immediately ahead will be difficult for the coal industry. I do not wish to foster any false illusions about that. However, if we can maintain the momentum towards investment in profitable pits, new faces and


profitable production, the industry will have a bright future. In the immediate period ahead, the market will remain slack and there will be difficulties.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is any country in Western Europe or the world investing on the scale that we are in the British coal mining industry? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if investment under the "Plan for Coal" continues on the basis of co-operation between the NUM, the NCB and the Government, it will lead to a firmer base for energy in Britain and to exciting prospects for exports to the rest of the world?

Mr. Howell: I think that we are investing the most per tonne compared with other Western European countries with deep coal mining industries. In terms of general investment in coal world-wide, massive sums are being put into the strip-mined coal of Australia, the United States of America and Canada. It is with that—given the heavy transport costs that that incurs—that deep-mined coal in Europe must compete. Britain can do that, provided that we concentrate investment on profitable opportunites and not on madcap, inefficient schemes that will benefit no one.

Multi-fibre Arrangement (Debate)

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday there will be a debate on the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement, which affects the jobs of about 700,000 people in the textile and clothing industries. The renewal of the arrangement is undertaken not by the Government, but by the EEC countries acting together.
Commission document No. COM81/129/Final deals with EEC proposals for the renegotiation of that arrangement. The Government have that document, it has been circulated to many trade associations and yesterday it was identified in a written answer. I asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he had placed the document in the Library. I cited the document in the question. The Minister said that she was carefully considering whether the document could be released to the House.
On 1 June the Secretary of State said:
Within the Community, we are currently studying draft proposals by the Commission for an outline negotiating mandate, and I hope that this will be considered by the Council of Ministers on 23 June."—[Official Report, 1 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 637.]
I raise this point of order because, first, the document, which forms the basis of Thursday's debate, has been identified by the Government in a written answer. They did so by mentioning "the document" in response to a question that I tabled about its publication.
Secondly, on 1 June the document was cited—although not identified—by the Secretary of State for Trade. Thirdly, the document forms the basis for a whole day's debate on Thursday. I understand it to be a rule that if a document is cited or quoted by a Minister it should be laid on the Table. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct that

the document be laid on the Table? It is perhaps even more important to do that as the whole day's debate will centre on it.
It would be an invasion of the sovereignty and rights of the House if a day's debate were devoted to a Community proposal and the essential paper was not before us and when the Government had already lost their sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his point of order—albeit this afternoon. In addition, I am grateful to him because I am more alert to the issue than I would otherwise have been. On Thursday there will be an Adjournment debate, and therefore the absence of a particular document cannot affect the orderliness of the debate. However, I shall consider the matter and reply to the hon. Gentleman's point of order tomorrow.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the six motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Aviation Security Fund (Third Amendment) Regulations 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Gipsy Encampments (Designation of the London Borough of Camden) Order 1981 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Rural Affairs in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions relating to Scotland, Scottish Grand Committee, Scottish Estimates, Matters relating exclusively to Scotland, and Procedure in Standing Committees may be proceeded with, though opposed, until midnight or three hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later, and that if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion, which have been selected by Mr. Speaker, may be moved and the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Rating System (Abolition)

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision in connection with the abolition of the rating system, including water and sewerage rates, and for connected purposes.
It is right now, and has been for some time, to continue discussion on this important subject in an effort to secure reform. One of my purposes in introducing the Bill is to concentrate the Government's mind and to maintain the impetus and momentum of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is in his place. He is used to meeting this momentum which we have kept up by day and night. I assure my hon. Friend that that momentum will continue.
I wish to concentrate the Government's mind because our party has played—particularly in the past six or seven years—a prominent part in giving pledges and promises to the effect that we would carry out rating reform. The governmental mind needs to be concentrated for the simple reason that at the next election we shall no longer be alone in promising rating reform within the greater spectrum of local government reform. Amidst all the problems and travails of the Labour Party—I do not mean this in any sarcastic respect—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) submitted a policy statement in a speech at the last Labour local government conference in February. It contained much that was attractive. Much of what I have to say agrees with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I warn the Government that we no longer have the luxury of being alone. Unless we do something about rating reform, we shall let down all those who voted for us, in part, for that reason. In addition, we shall let down our supporters.
My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that this is not the time—as you, Mr. Speaker, may agree—for a lecture on the rating system. Nevertheless, I have constantly referred to it since making my maiden speech on the topic in March 1974. Local government rates represent an unfair system of taxation. They bear little relation to the means to pay. Not more than half of the electorate pays rates. It is a serious matter that in difficult times and in the context of local government problems the system of local government taxation is contributed to by less than half of the electorate. There are problems of accountability between the electorate and councils and vice versa. In addition, local government rates are based on widely varying rateable values. Those are but some of the many problems that have led us to dislike the rating system so much.
Briefly, water rates bear no relation to consumption. There is far too much variation in charging for water. I appreciate that this problem goes wider than the rates issue. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is listening to every word that I say. If we abolish general rates or any part of the rating system the public will not stand for the continuation of the injustices of that system for water alone. Many of my hon. Friends know that at the moment the problem of water rates causes as much of a constituency difficulty—if not more—than the rating system as a whole.
This is a simple Bill which removes the power to impose rates after a maximum period of five years. Up to

a maximum period of five years the Government of the day will be empowered to charge rates, but after that period there will be no more authority to charge them. The reason for this, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, are the rules of the House. Indeed, those rules mean that in this speech I cannot suggest the imposition of taxation. I am entitled—I trust that you will agree with this, Mr. Speaker—to be entirely destructive, because it is not really within the bounds of order for me to go into great detail about alternatives. I hope that you will allow me to be constructively destructive, and, so far as is relevant to the provisions of the Bill and in particular the five-year period, to deal briefly with the alternative that I set before the House and which gives credibility to this Bill.
This five-year period is based on Layfield's estimate of the period necessary to introduce a local income tax. I emphasise to the House that in this vast report local income tax was referred to again and again and the report said quite firmly—indeed it mentioned it in the very last paragraph, as well as in everything before—that local income tax was the only practical additional and, in effect, alternative means of raising revenue to the rating system. At the end of the day income tax will be the only practical alternative. I reject utterly, and I know that not all my hon. Friends agree with me on this, the idea that this should be raised and allocated out of a national tax. I feel most strongly that we should work for and not against local democracy. Local income tax is perfectly possible, and, what is more, I always thought that that was in accordance with Conservative principles.
The five-year period means that we can get started now. The Government may be relieved to hear that politically this five-year period which Layfield lays down as being necessary to introduce local income tax means that we can and should get started now. If we get started now something will be ready on which the Government of the day can take action. Politically speaking, we are not prejudiced as far as our manifesto is concerned when it comes to the priorities of cutting direct taxation on the one hand and installing a reform of the rating system on the other.
There is ample time for water metering and sewerage. As for a local system of corporation tax, which is one of the most complex matters here, it is surely not beyond the wit of man to deal with that problem within five years. It is to be hoped that a suitable local system of local corporation tax can be introduced.
There is a final point on this matter concerning the industrial and commercial ratepayer. It is fatal to abolish domestic rates and expose industry as the main local taxpayer to councils not democratically accountable to them. This is the most important and I say—it is implicit in my Bill—that the Government's consultation, for which we are grateful, which will occur this autumn is seriously at fault in dealing with domestic rates only.
The chronology of the whole matter is in my view deplorable in view of the waste of time that has taken place in proceeding towards this much-needed reform. We have already had an enormous report. We have already had manifesto pledges. We have already had a consultation period of one year. We have already had a Green Paper, under the Labour Government. We have already had two years with this Government and now, in autumn 1981, we are to have consultations on the question of domestic rates.
I say, I hope with the support of all parts of the House, that the purpose of this Bill, which I hope the House will


allow me to introduce, is to get some action on this problem. In commending the Bill to the House, I ask it whether it is necessary to vote to accept an obvious and overdue reform.

Mr. Speaker: My indulgence this afternoon has nothing at all to do with the fact that the hon. Gentleman's father was once a Cardiff Member.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Sir Graham Page, Mr. Tony Durant Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Sidney Chapman, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. James Hill, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. James Pawsey.

RATING SYSTEM (ABOLITION)

Mr. Temple-Morris accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision in connection with the abolition of the rating system, including water and sewerage rates, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 July and to be printed. [Bill 157].

Orders of the Day — Contempt of Court Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On your selection of amendments and new clauses to be considered, may I draw your attention to amendment No. 11, in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which you have not selected for debate? The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and to a matter which, I concede immediately, was canvassed in Committee. The amendment that was discussed in Committee related to England and Wales on the one hand, and to Scotland on the other, and during the debate it became clear that the amendment as it related to Scotland was not acceptable to Scottish Members.
The amendment was voted upon and lost by a majority of one, and it was made clear in Committee that we would return to the matter on Report and propose an amendment that would be acceptable to Scottish Members, and that is what we have done. The proposition as it relates to England and Wales is similar to that which we discussed in Committee when we considered the commencement of strict liability, but the position in Scotland is different. We have sought to meet the views of Scottish Members, and we have tried to meet the needs of representatives of the press in Scotland.
The question of when strict liability should arise is of enormous concern to Fleet Street. One of the objects of the Bill is to replace uncertainty with certainty, and if the amendment is not selected we shall not have an opportunity to canvass the matter on the Floor of the House.
You have been generous in your selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, but there are other amendments that we should have liked to debate. I suggest, with respect but with as much force as I can, that, having put our tackle in good order, we are being denied the opportunity to return to a matter that goes to the heart of the Bill. I hope that you will give an indication—perhaps no more than that at this stage—that in the course of the evening you might reconsider your selection.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was dealt with in Committee at considerable length. It is one of the main planks of the principle of the Bill. It would be fair to say that any errors that might have existed about the Scottish aspect were subordinate to the discusson on the main principle.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, the Opposition regret that you have not selected certain amendments. On the Government Benches there is some regret that you have selected other amendments that were debated at great length in Committee. Perhaps in the end a fair balance has been achieved.
The amendment was properly argued and decided in Committee. The whole of the third sitting of the Committee was devoted to this aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to both right hon. and learned Gentlemen. I always work on the principle that every amendment that is tabled is dear to the heart of the people who tabled it, so I am not surprised at the attitude of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) on that question.
As the House knows, I never give reasons for selection; it is risky to do so. I was not unmindful of the facts mentioned by the Attorney-General. As usual, I shall look at the matter at the request of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon, but I do not want to raise false hopes.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be relieved to know that my point of order is not about new clause 3, which, being starred, I understand could not be selected.
I sat through the Committee proceedings, and my problem arises from your selection of Government amendment No. 20, which removes clause 8, and, simultaneously, the failure to select amendment No. 5.
I understand that the principle of the Bill is to create certainty. If we take away clause 8 that will leave tribunals at the mercy of the judgment of the courts from time to time, whereas if we were to be able to decide the principle of amendment No. 5, that would create certainty.
I do not know why I am speaking for my Front Bench on this matter, except that we have worked together in Committee. There is a problem here, and if you are spending a little time considering the matter put to you by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), I should be obliged if you would consider also the point I have put to you.

Mr. Speaker: I feel almost like saying "Welcome home" to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). It is natural enough that he should raise a point of order on the first occasion that I hear him since he has returned to us. I shall look at the question, but, again, the hon. Member has even less hope than has his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) that I shall tell the House that I reject Government amendment No. 20, which I have selected. It is true that if that amendment is carried amendment No. 5 will fall and there will not be a vote on it. I was well aware of that when I took the decision.

New Clause 1

USE OF TAPE RECORDERS (No. 2)

'(1) It is a contempt of court for anyone other than a solicitor acting in the proceedings in question to use in court any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound while the proceedings are taking place in chambers or in camera and any such tape recording made by such a solicitor shall not be used for any purpose except for the conduct of those proceedings and shall not be played to the public or any section of the public.
(2) It is a contempt of court for anyone to reproduce any recording of proceedings for the purpose of a broadcast.
(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above it is hereby declared that it is lawful to use in court, and to bring into court for use any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound and that the leave of the court shall not be required.'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 17, leave out clause 10.

Mr. Archer: The clause is almost unique on Report. It is moved precisely because it is thought not to be controversial. It is not intended to be divisive. Among the matters we discussed at some length in Committee was the subject of tape recorders. The two sides of the Committee achieved a wide consensus. I hope to state that consensus as fairly and untendentiously as I can.
We agreed that tape recorders fulfilled precisely the same function as shorthand writers. They probably fill it more accurately, and that entails no disrespect to the very high standards of shorthand writers in our courts. A tape recorder is rather less likely to mishear, and, when it does mishear, at least it is clear that it has misheard. Not having the intelligence of a human being, it does not make an informed guess to fill the gap; so at least it is known when there is a gap. It is probably less susceptible to occasional lapses in concentration and less open to human error, all of which is only to say that shorthand writers are human and, as I said in Committee, I never cease to be amazed at their consistantly high standards.
4.45 pm
There is another sense which was not mentioned in Committee in which tape recorders may be more accurate than shorthand writers. They can record the inflexion of a voice, and all those who have had to appeal a direction to the jury will know that the difference between two directions may lie not in the words—the words may be identical—but in the tone of voice in which they are said.
The tape recorder is less expensive. That may be an important consideration when a litigant of limited means is engaged in a contest with, for example, an opulent company. A tape recorder may be tampered with, but tampered with to about the same extent as a shorthand note if someone is minded to be dishonest. On the other hand, it may take longer to read back a tape recording than it does to ask a shorthand writer to read back a shorthand note. There are advantages in both, and there might be good arguments for continuing to use both in our courts.
A tape recorder may be noisy, although many modern tape recorders are noisless, like other electronic devices. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) confessed in Committee that he had been out of order without our knowledge for some minutes and was able to tell us the result of the cup final.
A tape recording is more dramatic than a shorthand note. That was the objection of the Phillimore committee. A witness or a litigant might feel inhibited at the thought that an answer might be recorded and, in addition, subsequently broadcast and I appreciate the feelings. This, I suspect, is what was meant in another place by Lord Roskill when he said that tape recorders would be distracting.
Tape recorders and shorthand writers each have their place, and the question certainly is not resolved by exchanging epithets like "Luddite" and "closed shop". In the light of all these considerations, the Committee achieved a wide measure of agreement on what should be the width of the restriction.
First, it seems sensible that the court should have a tape recorder available. As this is entirely under the control of the judge, it does not matter whether or not we say that it shall not be used without the leave of the judge. That does not provide any problem.
Secondly, we believe that a tape recorder should be available to the parties and their advisers, although in the clause we have confined the privilege relating to that specifically to solicitors. We have not even extended it to parties acting in person. To employ a shorthand writer may be very expensive. A tape recorder is less expensive and, provided that it is used only for the purposes of the proceedings, there seemed to be agreement in Committee that there was no objection to this.
The clause provides that it should be open to a solicitor to use a tape recording for the purpose of the proceedings in chambers without having to request the leave of the judge. That eliminates the need for unnecessary applications, and the happily diminishing number of judges who do0 not like modern technology are not tempted. If the tape recorder is noisy, that will not affect the right of a judge to deal with any noisy distraction, whether it is a tape recorder or anything else. Whatever the source of the distraction, he can deal with it.
Thirdly, it was agreed that the tape recording should be available to ordinary members of the public. We would not want a foreigner—who had dropped into our courts because he had heard praises of our legal system—and who turned on his tape recorder to find that he had inadvertently exposed himself to proceedings for contempt and, as the Bill is worded, to have his tape recorder confiscated. I ventured to say in Committee that that was reminiscent of the Anglo-Saxon law of deodand whereby a cart which ran over someone's foot was taken away and burned.
We hope that the law will be administered with discretion, but I hope that the Attorney-General is not regretting one of the more liberal things he said. This is the third time that I have quoted it, but he argued in Committee in another context that it is wrong to have an offence on the statute book in circumstances where one hopes and intends that there will be no prodeedings. It is not enough to say that one hopes that everyone will be sensible and compassionate in administering it. If in certain circumstances it depends on that, in those circumstances it should not be on the statute book.
Members of the public, sitting in the public gallery, are not in a position to apply to the judge. We thought that it was better to have the obligation the other way round—that if a member of the public wished to use a tape recorder it should be open to him to do so. If the tape

recorder is noisy of obtrusive an usher can be quietly despatched to ask that person to turn if off or, if necessary, the judge can tell him in open court to do so.
However, that leaves the person who wants to record in order to broadcast the proceedings of the courts. That is basically what troubled the Phillimore committee in paragraphs 42 and 43 of its report which discussed what might arise from the fact that a tape recorder is a more dramatic form of recording what is said. In Committee I was first inclined to equate broadcasting proceedings in court with broadcasting proceedings in the House, although at one time I had entertained doubts about that.
If we want the public to appreciate and co-operate with what is happening and to give their time and attention, as so often they uninstintingly do, they are entitled to hear what is happening. I am one of those who take the view that broadcasting proceedings in the House has transpired to be a great success. It has informed the public. It has not always led to enhanced respect for the House but that is not the fault either of the recorder or of the reactions of the public.
I was inclined to take the view that the public should be able to hear recordings of the proceedings in our courts, but the Solicitor-General for Scotland persuaded me about that. He pointed out that we come here of our own volition, when our electors endorse that volition, whereas litigants and witnesses in the courts are often there not of their own volition. It is hard to expose people to the risk that something they say perhaps in an ill-considered moment or under pressure will be taken out of context and broadcast. That might have an inhibiting effect on the course of justice.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that he has no desire whatsoever for the proceedings in any court to be recorded and broadcast, because new clause 1, with which I have great sympathy, says nothing about the courts being recorded for broadcasting purposes? It is important that he reiterates the point that he has just made.

Mr. Archer: I thought that I was in the process of doing that, no doubt at inordinate length, but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I shall say it in one sentence as clearly as I can. After the debate in Committee and after listening to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I was persuaded. The Opposition agree that we do not wish the proceedings of the courts to be broadcast. That is the express reason for the form in which we have drafted the new clause.
We emerged with a reasonable balance in the new clause. That balance reflects the consensus in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) pointed out in his point of order, he tabled new clause 3 in virtually the same terms as new clause 1, but, with his customary restraint, in rather more restricted terms. I appreciate, as he does, why new clause 3 was not selected, but the Opposition would not have objected to the clause in the form in which it was drafted by my hon. Friend. We should not wish to be less restrained because there is a good reason for the restraint he offered.
Whether that can be achieved, at this stage I venture no opinion until I know what consensus there is in the House. However, I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of all hon. Members together, if the House clearly evinced a wish to introduce a new clause in the form drafted by my hon. Friend, to find a way of doing it.
In Committee the Attorney-General was kind enough to say that he would like to think again about the matter, in the light of the opinions expressed in the debate. It might be uncharitable of me to suggest that that was possibly not wholly uninfluenced by the reflection that in Committee he would not have carried the Government's position on a Division. We accepted with joy in our hearts that the Attorney-General would think about it. We had great hopes. In any event, I am a natural optimist. I shall not elaborate further on our reasons for the new clause but shall allow the Attorney-General the opportunity to announce the result of his reflections.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I did not have the advantage of being selected as a member of the Committee. Sometimes that is a disadvantage and sometimes it has the advantage of giving one the opportunity of bringing a fresh mind to bear on the problem. I have read the report of the proceedings in Committee and have tried to bring that fresh mind to bear.
Generally, I welcome the new clause so persuasively argued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). At the same time I make two criticisms of it. I criticise it as it is too restrictive in two different ways. First, it is too restrictive in confining the use of the tape recorder to those who have something to do with the litigation.
I can see no disadvantage in tape recorders being freely used, provided that there is an ultimate power in the court—as there would be under the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), which has not been selected—to refuse to allow a tape recorder to be used in any circumstances, if it is likely to interfere with the administration of justice or is distracting either because it is noisy or because the witness is in difficulties as a result of the recorder being used.
Even if the new clause were extended to allow tape recorders to be used freely in court, one would not find a battery of tape recorders facing a witness as they would still be rarely used. However, I see no reason why those who wish to use them—for example, the press—should not be allowed to do so. If the press had been allowed to use tape recorders in the great case which led to the Harriet Harman matter there might not have been a Harriet Harman case, because the journalist concerned could have made a recording of what was said and would not have had to resort to Miss Harriet Harman's recollection of what was said or of the documents that had been quoted in the court.
I have taken the trouble to look through the records referred to in "Erskine May" so far as the House in concerned, but I can find no suggestion in "Erskine May" that it would be a contempt of the House for an hon. Member, or possibly even a member of the public, to have a tape recording of what was said. For all you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may have one in the capacious pockets of my suit—although, in case I am in danger, I hasten to assure you that I have not. However, what difficulty would there be if I had, unless it was a tape recorder that made sufficient noise to distract other right hon. and hon. Members?
5 pm
There was an occasion in 1819 when a member of the public was found to be in contempt of court when taking notes of what was said in the House and then refusing to desist when an Officer of the House asked him to do so,

but 1819 is a long time ago, and since then we have agreed that it is not a contempt of the House for our proceedings to be reported.
I regard the new clause as unduly cautious. I take a much more radical view of the matter, but I understand that it is an attempt to compromise and to follow what Phillimore discussed, so I go along with it.
However, there is one other respect in which the new clause is unduly restrictive. My right hon. and learned Friend gave some weight to this factor, but did not deal with it adequately. It restricts the operation of the provision to a person who is a solicitor acting in the proceedings.
I was interested to observe that a new clause purporting to give a monopoly to solicitors is put down in the names of three eminent members of the Bar. If I were not full of trust for my right hon. and learned Friend, it might occur to me that there may be a few months during which he will remain in private practice, and here he is seeking to give an advantage to members of the other profession who may be providing him with the wherewithal to practise. However, I have no such suspicion. I trust him far too much for that. I hope, in any event, that it will be only a few months before he resumes his rightful place on the Government Front Bench.
However, the effect of making the restriction is that a person who does not have the advantage of being represented by a solicitor does not have the advantage of being able to use a tape recorder to record the proceedings, and, indeed, may have far more need to do so than somebody who has the advantage of being represented. I say nothing of the advantage that it might be to counsel, because a solicitor, if counsel wants it done, no doubt will do it for him.
However, why should the unrepresented defendant be denied the opportunity to make his tape recording and the represented defendant have the advantage that the solicitor should do so for him? An important principle is involved. We should make no distinction that gives advantage to the represented as opposed to the unrepresented defendant, and the principle is being infringed by the wording of the new clause.

Mr. Archer: My right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that subsection (1) relates to proceedings in chambers. The thinking behind it is that one hopes that a solicitor can be relied on not to abuse the privilege—and he would be subject to disciplinary proceedings if he did. A member of the public would fall within subsection (3).

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for explaining that. Even so, a distinction is plainly being made between the represented and unrepresented defendant, which in principle is undesirable. If the new clause is accepted, I certainly hope that at a later stage any such distinction could be removed. I should have thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that it must be a cardinal principle that a person should not be unduly advantaged by being represented. He is already advantaged by having representation; he should not have some additional advantage created by the law merely because he happens to be represented in court.
I welcome the new clause, with the reservations that in two respects it is unduly restrictive.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am against the new clause in principle because it appears to say that we should


not trust the judges to decide whether in a particular case with a particular application it would further the proceedings of justice to allow tape recorders to be used. It says that the public shall decide. I am afraid that I am strongly against the clause, because my experience from practising in the courts is that the public cannot always be trusted to observe the proprieties, certainly of criminal trials.
At present, it is necessary to apply to the judge for permission to use a tape recorder. The application is made and, in his discretion, the judge will grant it if it is sensible and the recording will in some way help counsel or solicitors to conduct the case properly or the judge to have an accurate record of a part of the evidence.
An application does not have to be made by shorthand writers. All judges allow them to have tape recorders to help them with their reports. Doubtless, if members of the press were having difficulty in hearing and would be assisted by having a tape recorder near to the witness, the judge would grant the application. In practice, there is a right to use the modern technological aid of tape recording, which I imagine would seldom be refused by a judge if the application were properly made.
However, the right excludes the public. The public should not have the right to use a tape recorder in a court of law. They are there to see that justice is done. They have an important role as observers. Those who cannot get into court can read a report in a newspaper, so there is every reason for having accurate reports of court proceedings in the newspapers.
However, that is the limit of the public's activity. They are not participants in the criminal or even civil process. Lawyers do not speak to the public in the public gallery. The public are not invited to come down to express their views. They are silent observers to see that justice is done.
If we allow the public, as of right, to come in with tape recorders, they may use them surreptitiously. They may abuse the privilege by sending in a sealed envelope, anonymously, to any press agency the content of what they have recorded. One can buy in the shops magazines and publications that tread close to breaches or offences of the law in what they publish. This will be grist to the mill of the furtive member of the public who uses a tape recorder. It is undesirable that this right should be given to any member of the public who might abuse it.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am trying to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. What is the difference in principle, given the fact that it would be a criminal offence to use such tape recordings for broadcasting, between a member of the public taking a shorthand note in court and sending that note to a newspaper or a magazine and a member of the public sending a note based on the transcript of a tape recording? Where does the difference lie?

Mr. Lawrence: The difference is always a question of degree. It allows more situations to arise in which breaches of the law might take place without the authorities being able necessarily to attribute blame. One knows that statements appear in magazines that are currently on sale. One would very much like to know who made the statement so that proceedings may be brought or some investigation made. The proposal means opening opportunities for abuse wider than is already possible. That is one reason why I oppose the public having an

automatic right of access to tape recorders over which the judge does not necessarily have control because he does not necessarily know that tape recorders are being used.

Mr. Keith Best: I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's fear. Assuming that the present Bill will not inhibit certain publications from taking an interest in proceedings which can be attended in any event by members of the public, who can take a shorthand note, what does he consider the greater abuse—an accurate report of those proceedings or an inaccurate one heard by someone whose shorthand is defective?

Mr. Lawrence: As my hon. Friend knows, with his experience, no doubt, of the use of tape recorders in court, a difference of opinion can often arise over exactly what is stated on the tape recorder. If the tape recorder is not the type that picks up the sound from a particular direction, the noise reproduced by the tape recorder is sometimes a garbled and jumbled mess. It is possible for someone to misunderstand what is stated on the tape recorder. I do not seek to pursue that argument. If it is a valid point, it should be weighed against the point that I make. The number of valid points against the proposal outweigh the invalid points that are made.
The second danger in the public having easy access to tape recorders in criminal trials is that tape recorders in small courts can be very distracting. We discussed this matter in Committee. A person came to that Committee with a tape recorder that was more or less silent. Not all tape recorders are silent. It is extremely distracting for witnesses and for juries in some of the smaller courts, which unfortunately have to be used because of the shortage of courts, if incidental noise occurs off stage.
One hears in these courts people using pile drivers up the street and people banging on construction equipment. Sometimes, even the tearing out of pages from a notebook causes everyone to look in that direction because the noise is so distracting. This proposal imports into court the likelihood of more noise and more distraction, which will take away not only the concentration of the witness, but also the concentration of the jury, which may often be more important.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would that problem not be eliminated if the judge had complete discretion to stop the use of a tape recorder if it proved distracting?

Mr. Lawrence: In that case, there is no point in changing the situation. The judge at present has a discretion. One can apply to the judge for permission to use a tape recorder. There does not seem much point in changing the rule to give the judge an overriding discretion to rebut a right that it is thought should be introduced through the new clause.
This is not one of the most important issues in the Bill. It seems, however, a small move to undermine the authority of the judge and to unsettle some of the processes of our courts for no purpose that is sufficiently important. It would be important in providing technological aids to lawyers, solicitors, barristers, and journalists. However, they have the right already to apply to the judge. In proper cases, the judge would, no doubt, never refuse permission.
It seems unnecessary to throw over something that seems to work adequately and well and to make an advance that will give the public an opportunity perhaps to interfere with the orderly process of justice. I am therefore opposed to the new clause.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am sorry that we are discussing a new clause tabled by my own Front Bench. When we made our deal in Committee, I thought that the logic of the pledge given by the Attorney-General was that he would take the necessary action and hon. Members would then be able to debate a new clause on the lines of the consensus that the Committee had reached.
It is worth recalling exactly what happened in Committee. At the beginning, I had tabled an amendment broadly on the lines of that now proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, but without the total prohibition on broadcasting. From that point of view, I agree that my amendment was defective for the purposes that I intended. The early ministerial responses from the Solicitor-General for Scotland were to the effect that the Government would have nothing to do with the amendment. The assumption was that the amendment would be voted down. However, as the Committee stage progressed, not only the two Conservative Members connected with the newspaper business, but one or two hon. Members connected with the legal profession began to make it clear that they saw the logic of the situation. They saw that a tape recorder is no more and no less than a piece of electronic shorthand that can be useful in making sure that a report of proceedings is accurate rather than inaccurate.
The Attorney-General found himself in a difficult position. Instead of being able to advise his colleagues, as he had intended, to vote against the amendment, he discovered that if he had done so, the amendment would, nevertheless, have been passed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore used the words:
I appreciate the sense of feeling on both sides of the Committee. I think that the feeling is that the amendment is right in principle. I also sense that it is probably agreed by the majority of hon. Members that publication in the sense of reproduction of the tape is unacceptable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981, c. 218.]
In the context in which matters were discussed in Committee, the assumption was that the Attorney-General, having admitted that the amendment was right in principle—this has been the assumption on all the Standing Committees on which I have served when such words have been used by the Government—that this was shorthand for the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying "I will go away, and I will bring back an amendment to the Floor of the House which accurately reflects the consensus at which the Committee has arrived".
That is what I expected would happen, and I am sorry that it has not happened. I do not want to accuse the Attorney-General of breaking pledges, because I do not believe that he has done so. I know that he has problems. However, there are rules of cricket, so to speak, in Standing Committees, and what he has done on this occasion is not quite cricket. I am genuinely sorry about that.
I shall say a little about the objections to the new clause, and the arguments for it. As the Attorney-General has not yet spoken, perhaps I might put a couple of points to him now. In last Saturday's edition of The Times I read a headline which clearly had nothing to do with me, because I had been away from the House for a couple of weeks. I have discovered that that is an unwise thing to do. The headlines read:
Attorney-General refuses to shift over court tapes",

and the article was by the paper's eminent legal correspondent, Mr. Berlins. He said in his article, and one knows the contacts that these journalists have with the legal establishment:
Sir Michael's intention is to meet criticism of the clause by undertaking to issue a circular to judges exhorting them to grant permission to use tape recorders liberally".
If that is to be so, it is no substitute for what should happen.
If we are to be told about some direction to judges, I hope that we shall be told about the small print rather than the large print, because on it will depend whether judges will take any notice of the direction. I should like to know exactly what the Lord Chancellor intends to say in any such instruction, and exactly the terms in which it is to be cast. It must be a real practice direction and not a phoney one. As there was a consensus in Committee, that consensus should be reflected in practice in the courts.
The Attorney-General must realise that clause 10—as it has now become—was drafted in a wholly different atmosphere. It was drafted in what I shall call the Phillimore atmosphere of thinking—in other words, that tape recorders are a frightening new gadget and should only be used sparingly. Phillimore had a somewhat sour attitude to tape recorders, and I do not think that it is unfair to say that.
The consensus in Committee was reached in a quite different environment. The majority in Committee—I realise that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was not of the majority—a Committee composed of lawyers, and not ordinary folk, as one might have found in another Committee, were determined not to be sour about tape recorders, but to be as liberal as possible in their use.
I do not know whether any amendments will be pushed to a Division today, but I hope that when the Bill goes to another place the wording of clause 10 will be looked at again to make sure that it accords with the consensus which the Attorney-General accepted in Committee and which we therefore have a right to expect now to be Government policy.
One reason why I do not accuse the Attorney-General of breaking a pledge is that we all had reason to be grateful to him in Committee. We obtained a number of concessions that we had not expected. Moreover, I recognise that he is the under-chauffeur, as it were, of the Bill, and not the driver. I am sure that he has problems with the Lord Chancellor. I do not want to stir up the matter or to draw undue attention to it, but anyone reading the report of the Committee stage of the Bill in the other place and comparing it with the Committee stage of the Bill in this place could be excused for wondering whether they were debating the same Bill. The two Committee stages took place in wholly different atmospheres and the Government Front Bench responses had wholly different tones. In my view, it shows the superiority of the Attorney-General over the Lord Chancellor, and the House of Commons over the House of Lords. However, I shall not dwell on the matter.
The Attorney-General faces another set of problems, which it is right for me to mention. In Committee I made a remark which the Attorney-General categorised as a wild pronunciamento. I said that the reluctance to use tape recorders in courts was something to do with what I described as


a nasty little monopolistic Mafia of shorthand writers who charge ludicrous fees for a transcript of proceedings to the point where the ordinary defendant"—
the ordinary non-legally aided defendent—
who is trying to appeal is frequently … precluded from getting the transcript he wants".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981; c. 205.]
There were shock horror reactions from the lawyers around me, as though shorthand writers were the nicest possible people. Sure enough, the moment a report appeared in The Times, our mail was full of pleas from such organisations as the National Society of Stenotypists and the Institute of Shorthand Writers practising in the Supreme Court of Judicature, justifying everything that I said in Committee.
One plea came from Miss Wason, who said in a recent letter to The Times "Think of the poor witness in the criminal case who might have his or her voice reproduced", or words to that effect. Writing to us, her words were quite different. It is not "Think of the poor witness", but "Think of the poor shorthand writer". I shall quote from her letter:
Although shorthand writers in the past have not been militant, feelings are bound to run high over this issue and there may well be a call for industrial action throughout the courts".
I did not associate the Government with immediate collapse in the face of threats of industrial action. However, whatever the real reason for the Attorney-General's retreat on the issue, this appears to be one. I had never associated the Government with a belief in closed shops and Luddism, but in retreating the Attorney-General is backing the Luddites.
The Attorney-General gave a pledge in Committee which he is obliged to deliver. The argument in Committee was straightforward: tape recorders equal shorthand; both can be fixed, if someone wants to abuse them; both can produce a more accurate record. No one suggested that tape recorders were a substitute for shorthand. I spoke to the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors this morning, and he insists that newspaper editors see tape recorders as simply a help, an aid, an adjunct to the shorthand writer, to get bits right that he might have got wrong.
5.30 pm
I regard this as essentially an issue about openness in our courts, because the Harman case would not have been pursued by the Home Office had journalists been able, as of right, to sit on the press benches with tape recorders. Some journalists have wrists of steel and can continue writing for some time. However, a problem arises not when witnesses are being questioned, but when documents are read out—documents that the Home Office does not want revealed because they contain information about the prison system that it does not wish to be made public—at a far faster pace than is normal in the usual intercourse of legal question and answer. A tape recording can be a tremendous advantage in those circumstances.
The problem is that everyone connected with the courts has a conservative streak. Many banisters are not keen on tape recorders being used in court. Many newspaper editors feel that, because they started at 15 years of age and learnt shorthand, so must everyone else. Those attitudes are no more and no less than a refusal by conservative professions to come to terms with a sensible, useful, modern aid which helps the accurate reporting of what should be an absolutely open system of justice.
For those reasons, I am sorry that the Attorney-General has not tabled a suitable amendment. I shall listen carefully to his remarks before deciding whether to try to persuade my colleagues to press either the new clause or the amendment which would strike out the provisions in the Bill. I shall have to decide whether I am satisfied with what he has to say.

Mr. Brotherton: I found it a fascinating experience to sit on the Committee. There were 14 lawyers, two Christians and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). We had an interesting time.
I shall be brief. I am a sailor, and I recall my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland speaking about tape recorders in court. I do not know whether it is right to tell the House that he had a word with me outside the earshot of the Hansard reporter. When I rose to intervene in his speech, the Whip said, "Sit down, shut up, what are you doing?" I said that I would proceed.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend to pay attention to the fact that a number of Conservative Members in Committee, together with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and members of the Opposition Front Bench, thought that it would be right to pass an amendment in Committee to make it possible for tape recorders to be used in court. My right hon. and learned Friend gave me to understand that, if I offered him the opportunity to think again, he would come to the Floor of the House and change the wording of the Bill. I understand that he is about to renege on that undertaking. If he does so, I shall vote against the Government tonight.

Mr. Best: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is one of the two Christians who served on the Committee. I am still trying to work out who the other might be. Perhaps that will become clear during the course of the debate.
I am disappointed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not tabled a suitably phrased amendment, bearing in mind what he said in Committee. I do not accuse him of being disingenuous in any way. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) quoted some of my right hon. and learned Friend's words in Committee. I shall continue the quotation. He said:
I undertake to reconsider the matter before Report but only in the sense that we might be inclined to broaden the scope of those who may use the facility, but certainly with the strictest restrictions on what can be used for other than what I might call proper reasons for those who are there. If that meets with the Committee's approval, I shall look at it again before Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981; c. 218.]
He was doing nothing more than agreeing to consider the matter again. However, to my untutored ear it appeared to be a good indication—I know that other Members thought so also—of what would happen.
If we had been able to listen to a tape recording of my right hon. and learned Friend's words, rather than reading the cold lines in Hansard, we might have detected a little of that great persuasion that we have come to associate with him and which, perhaps, convinced us that we should not press the amendment in Committee. We thought that the matter would be put right on the Floor of the House.
I am sorry that we are discussing the new clause tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, rather than the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West and myself. Had we discussed the latter, with the addition of subsection (3), it might have assuaged not only the fears


of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) but the fears of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
The new clause contained a caveat that members of the general public should be able to use tape recorders in court,
except that the court may make an order prohibiting the bringing into court of such tape recorders or instruments for all or part of the proceedings in question, on the grounds that there is a substantial risk that such recording will interfere with the course of justice in those proceedings.'.
Surely there is nothing offensive about that. Indeed, it would encompass all the problems that have been raised. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was good enough to say that that amendment was acceptable. Had he seen it before he tabled his amendment, he might have supported it rather than his own.
It is not in contention today, nor was it in Committee, that tape recorders are an accurate measurement of proceedings and should be encouraged. That was said by Phillimore on page 19, paragraph 42 of his report:
We see no objection in principle to the use of recording machines. For many purposes they are no more than a modern substitute for shorthand, and in some courts they are officially used as such. The main objection to the use of recorders is that they produce a more dramatic but not necessarily more accurate record of what occurred in court. We consider that it would be particularly undesirable for recordings to be broadcast or otherwise made public especially since, in the wrong hands, they can be tampered with so as to produce a false record of what occurred.
That objection is dealt with in the new clause that we are discussing and in new clause 3.
I was in a Crown court recently when I happened to notice that the shorthand writer was using a tape recorder. I said to her, "Surely you are not using one of these fiendish machines?" Perhaps she had not read the report in The Times or had not heard of our proceedings on the Floor of the House or in Committee. She replied, "Of course. It helps me a great deal. It is much more accurate than I can be but, of course, I still take notes." That is a proper approach to the use of tape recorders. If they are available to enhance accuracy, which seems to be generally accepted, why is it that some of us are so coy about their use for the accurate reporting of proceedings?
It seems that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will say that he will issue a circular to the judiciary suggesting that tape recorders should be allowed for use in court unless there are good reasons to the contrary. If the issue is to be left entirely to the judge's discretion, I suspect that we all know what the answer will be. I envisage that very few members of the judiciary will welcome with open arms the use of tape recorders. Apart from anything else, a tape recorder may capture a number of asides a shorthand writer may not. However, the abuse of tape recorders lies not in the recording of asides but in broadcasting asides or causing them to appear in official reports. No one is suggesting that the use of a tape recorder would ensure that that occurred.
If the approach is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend that I anticipate, there will be a great conflict. If I am correct in my discernment of the judiciary's attitude, I suspect that not many judges will take kindly to a circular from my right hon. and learned Friend to the effect that

they should use tape recorders. It would be wrong for any member of the Executive to direct a judge how to conduct proceedings in his court.
5.45 pm
I shall deal with the two objections voiced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). He was concerned about the publication of proceedings in court by certain underground journals or less reputable journals. Secondly, he said that the noise of tape recorders would be distracting. Even of the clause is enacted unamended, I do not think that that will deter underground journals that fly in the face of the law of contempt and publish material from proceedings in court in cases in which they have a particular interest.
With respect, my hon. and learned Friend's argument about noise must be spurious. No one has pretended that the inherent jurisdiction of a judge to control the way in which his court operates will be destroyed by the new clause or by the Bill as it stands. It is axiomatic that if anything is done in a court room which is distracting to the proceedings, the judge has an inherent right to prevent that interference, whether it be from a tape recorder, people talking too loudly, or somebody using a squeaky pen. All those distractions come within a judge's jurisdiction.
On balance, I think that the amendment, or something like it, should be incorporated in the Bill. I should have preferred new clause 3. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give these matters serious consideration. He now has the measure of the opinion of the House and he properly took the measure of opinion in Committee when the issue was discussed. Many of us wish to see the use of tape recorders except when it will risk interfering substantially with the course of justice.

The Attorney-General: It is true that we had a useful discussion in Committee. It is right to say that we have had a useful discussion today. I shall put the record straight so far as I can. It was clear to me in Committee that there was strong feeling that the clause as it stood might be too restrictive in the sense that judges would perhaps not be willing, in cases where common sense should dictate that they should be willing, to grant such facilities to counsel or solicitors, or perhaps to journalists or to certain members of the public who have an interest. For example, a member of the Gaming Board for Great Britain attending a hearing for renewal or refusal to renew a gaming licence might feel, especially if he did not have shorthand—I suspect that he would not—that it would be useful to have as accurate a report as possible to enable him to report back fully to his fellow board members.
In Committee I said:
I undertake to reconsider the matter before Report but only in the sense that we might be inclined to broaden the scope of those who may use the facility.
Following that undertaking I spoke about strict restrictions. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) responded and said:
As I see it, the consensus of the Committee would be to allow, by statute, the parties and the official press to use tape recorders in court, but I do not think that there would be a consensus to allow visitors in the public gallery to do so.
That is interesting because that is exactly what is now being said.
The amendment would go far wider than that which received the Committee's consensus. The hon. and learned


Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) said in an intervention while my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland was speaking:
Different factors apply to accredited reporters in court. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that different factors apply to members of the public?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981, cc. 217–218.]
I read that as meaning that members of the public were not to be granted the privilege. I suspect that everybody did and I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended that meaning.
However, the new clause takes a contrary line. If there is any talk of breach of faith, in my view, the breach lies just as much with those who framed the amendment to cover the general public when the consensus of the Committee was clearly that the general public should not be concerned. I shall come to what I suggest will fit in exactly with what I said in Committee, namely,
be inclined to broaden the scope of those who may use the facility.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) that I deplore the repetition of what was said between a Minister and one of his Back Benchers. I do not accept the accuracy of my hon. Friend's version.

Mr. Brotherton: It was merely because of the attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend to the amendment that I felt that I had to make certain remarks. I for one would defend the accuracy of my remarks.

The Attorney-General: The problem which was considered with great care after our proceedings in Committee was to ensure that those who I thought the Committee believed should be entitled to these facilities were covered by an amendment or by some other method, bearing in mind the recommendations contained in the Phillimore report.
I remind the House of the recommendation made by Phillimore in paragraph 42. That was an important consideration for my noble Friend and me. That paragraph states:
The basic principle in all such matters is that a court must have power to regulate its own proceedings".
Paragraph 43 states:
no mechanical recorder should be used in court without the prior leave of the judge.
That is all that the clause is seeking to achieve.
Perhaps an impression is given by the wording of what is now clause 10 of an intention to suppress the use of recorders in court. That is not the intention. I have been told that if a member of the public wishes to use a tape recorder in court, he can make an application in advance. There is a recent example of a student in the North who has asked for permission to record certain types of proceedings for purposes of academic study. That matter is now under consideration by the judges in the area where the student wishes to operate his tape recorder. Therefore, it is possible not only for barristers, solicitors and members of the press to use tape recorders, but for the public also to do so.
The deprivation of the control which is always exercised by the court is a serious objection to the amendment. It creates a statutory right to bring in and use tape recorders, however bulky, noisy and inconvenient they are to others, however distracting they may be, however much they may worry a nervous witness, particularly in a rape case, for example, and however

much they may be used in cases in which the public as a whole would flinch at the idea of tape recorders being used, such as the recent Sutcliffe case.
In that case 84 journalists attended the court, many of whom were foreign. If they had been allowed to use tape recorders, they would have been able to record everything, to go back to their countries and play back the proceedings over the local radio stations, some programmes on which are beamed to the United Kingdom. They could also be selective about what was played back. That would be a matter of great embarrassment not only to the witnesses; in certain cases the jury might be reminded of selective parts of the evidence which, in my view, would not assist it in coming to a true and impartial verdict.

Mr. Christopher Price: Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am not learned. When we discussed various other clauses in Committee, it was said that, whatever we put in the Bill in terms of declaratory legislation, ordinary common law rights might override it. Would not it be true that even this amendment, which says that it is legal to use tape recorders, would not inhibit the right of the judge or whoever was in charge of the court to insist that anything which was noisy or distracting, even if it were a tape recorder, should not be used?

The Attorney-General: With respect, if the amendment became law, it would provide an absolute right by statute that any person in court could use a tape recorder and could not be stopped by the judge. All that the user would have to do would be to point to subsection (3) to say that he has an absolute right which is given to him by Parliament and that the judge cannot stop him.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is not the difficulty that, if the new clause is carried, it could be amended in another place in a way which would meet the difficulties to which the Attorney-General has properly drawn attention? On the other hand, if the new clause is not carried in this House, the other place is stuck with the Bill as it stands. There is no way of altering it in order to relax it.

The Attorney-General: As one would expect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my predecessor, is absolutely right.
For solicitors and counsel there are the advantages of the professional conduct committees with the Bar Council, the Senate and the Law Society. Therefore, there is a measure of discipline in that case, particularly as regards what use may be made of the tape recording later on. It would be impossible to exercise any control over the public. With regard to broadcasting, it would perhaps be possible to reach the station which was making the broadcast unless it was one of the pirate stations.
It would be possible to turn round the provision so that tape recorders were allowed, subject to order by the court to the contrary. That has also been considered. I doubt whether it would make much practical difficulty, but there are arguments in favour of a rule of requiring prior permission. I shall set out one or two.
The main advantage is that a requirement prior to permission serves to notify not only the judge, but the parties, that proceedings will be recorded. There may be occasions when, for good reasons, a party, as well as the judge, might not want a particular part of the proceedings to be recorded. For example, it is common practice for witnesses in criminal cases to be sent out of court until


their turn comes to give evidence so that they cannot tailor or trim their evidence in respect of questions which might have been asked in cross-examination earlier on. Staff on duty at criminal courts are told to be on watch for and to prevent anyone who appears to be coming out of court to brief waiting witnesses on what evidence has been given.
It is improper in court—and it can be stopped by the judge—even to take a note unless one is a counsel, a solicitor or a party. An ordinary member of the public can be stopped from taking a note. That is because there might be a briefing of other witnesses. I suppose that it would be impossible to prevent a waiting witness from being slipped a cassette tape in a hidden way. If that court or the parties were unaware that recording was going on, they could not be alerted to the dangers which I have described.
It is also interesting to see how the professional bodies have dealt with the matter. The Bar Council recently issued a guidance note that counsel should seek the leave of the court before using tape recorders. The Law Society has expressed no view. It does not seem to oppose clause 10 because in its memorandum on the Bill it states simply, without comment, that the clause implements Phillimore's recommendation 32.
I repeat a point that has already been made. I do not see why counsel should be excluded from the privilege when in chambers or in those circumstances because often counsel turns up with a solicitor's clerk who may know nothing about the case, when the solicitor is not there. The need for him to be able to record the proceedings is just as great. The present situation, before clause 10 becomes law, whether or not it is amended, is that the courts have power to grant that facility.
I emphasise that there is no question of intending to suppress the use of tape recorders. There is no objection in principle to it. I have made it clear that I believe that there are many occasions when counsel, solicitors, the parties and certain members of the public with an interest in the action or proceedings should properly be allowed to use tape recorders. I hope that the courts will be flexible, particularly if there is no official note of the proceedings—for example, county courts, magistrates' courts, coroners' courts—and on those occasions lawyers often appear alone, and there is no one to take a note for them. Tape recorders are also helpful for recording a judgment in a county court.
My noble Friend believes that the county courts should be ready to accede to requests from legal representatives and responsible court reporters for permission to use tape recorders, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Subject to consultation with members of the circuit bench, the Lord Chancellor is prepared to issue formal advice to that effect.
Similar advice may be given by the Home Office—consultations are not complete there—to magistrates' courts and coroners' courts. In higher courts, the point is less important to an extent because an official note is taken. My noble Friend hopes that in that case, too, a reasonably flexible attitude will be adopted.

Mr. Lawrence: Instead of a Department of State having to churn out endless pieces of paper to the various courts, would it not be simpler for the Attorney-General

to ensure that a practice direction is given, which could be cited by any counsel or solicitor who is appearing in those courts?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend anticipated me by 10 seconds.

Mr. S. C.Silkin: Will the Attorney-General be good enough to bring to the attention of his noble Friend my point about the unrepresented defendant?

6 pm

The Attorney-General: I shall, of course, do that. That matter concerns me, too. Such a defendant must be entitled to exactly the same privileges or rights. One of the advantages of this solution is that it gets round the difficulty of defining a reporter, which, in spite of the skill of Miss Harman, still exists. I had originally thought that she would be coming to see me with two Members of Parliament. Interuption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Lewisham, West would do me the courtesy of listening to this point, as he often says to me. I thought that Miss Harman was coming with the hon. Gentleman and another member of the Committee. Neither in fact turned up. In spite of that, however, I saw Miss Harman alone for nearly an hour. I hope that that is appreciated.

Mr. Christopher Price: With regard to the accuracy of the Attorney-General's comments, my difficulty was that I was away on parliamentary business for a couple of weeks. I was willing to give my time at any time during the week that the House was in recess, but I was told that not only the Attorney-General, as was wholly understandable, but all his officials who might be dealing with the matter were also in recess. It was therefore not possible for me personally to discuss the matter. I know that these coincidences happen. It has been an unfortunate set of circumstances.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that that applies to all the officials.
Reference was made to The Times. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I approved of Miss Harman being able to give a summary of the results of our discussion. She was entitled to give the interview and to say what she did. I have no complaint about that.
I believe that practice directions, rather than circulars, are the best way to do this. These would be from heads of division, such as the Vice Chancellor, the President of the Family Division and the Lord Chief Justice. I understand that they are all willing to do this. Anticipating that I might be asked a little more about the fine print, I spoke to the Lord Chief Justice today. I have his authority to say that the kind of words that he has in mind would be:
Judges should in proper cases treat applications to use tape recorders in court sympathetically.
I should have thought that that was quite a good indication from the head of the Queen's Bench Division.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for coming with those actual words. To my layman's mind, however, the word "proper" begs a whole range of questions which I cannot at present answer. Could the Attorney-General go a little further on what he and the Lord Chief Justice think is meant by "proper cases"? I understand that "sympathetically" means that, although judges have a right to ban tape recorders if there is good reason, they should not do so, as it were, capriciously. However, the idea that there are two kinds of case—one


in which it is proper to use tape recorders and another in which it is improper—I find puzzling. If the Attorney-General would fill in a little on that, it would be helpful.

The Attorney-General: This was done rather speedily at lunchtime. The word "proper" may not be necessary. There will be cases in which the parties must be able to say whether or not they agree. There may be cases involving very personal and private matters in which a witness may become extremely distressed and may be clearly put off from giving her evidence, in which case the judge may decide that the tape recorders should be stopped for a while. There are cases in which there are galaxies of counsel and solicitors where it would be unnecessary. Again the recent Sutcliffe trial is an example. I think that the public would have been appalled if they had thought that that was being recorded, particularly by foreign reporters.
In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), with regard to its being no contempt for a Member of Parliament or the public to record in the House, the advice that I have been given is totally the contrary with regard to anybody other than a Member of Parliament, and I understand that the position of a Member of Parliament is not clear. I am told that it is absolutely forbidden for any member of the public to bring any recording device into the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: There is no record of any such case in "Erskine May", other than the note-taking to which I referred.

The Attorney-General: I understand that the instructions from the Serjeant-at-Arms' office is in accordance with that.
The amendment refers to there being no publication of recordings. It also draws a distinction between proceedings in private and in public. A recording of proceedings in public can apparently be published so long as it is not broadcast. The curious situation might therefore arise in which the voice of a witness or of the accused—I cite once again the Sutcliffe case—could be used in the sound track of a film or in the sound effects of a stage performance. I cannot believe that anyone would regard that as right.
For the reasons that I have given, with the practice directions to which I have referred encouraging judges to allow the use of tape recorders, this provision has the advantage of achieving what I believe is essential in maintaining the ultimate control of a court in the hands of that court. I hope that the House will feel that that goes far enough and that the new clause is not necessary.

Mr. Archer: That is a disappointing reply. So Mr. Berlins is right. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), I had considered that the Committee was told by the Attorney-General that if we did not divide at that time, when the provision would clearly have been carried, that might be recognised with a quid pro quo. I was not speaking of bad faith. I have not done so and I still do not; nor am I accustomed to being accused of it. Our debates might be more constructive and less acrimonious if terms of that kind were not used.
I appreciate that the hon. Members for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and Anglesey (Mr. Best) feel let down. The Attorney-General raised our expectations, although we fully appreciate his difficulties. We read carefully what he

said in Committee and tried to reflect it in the new clause, although clearly the precise breadth of the new clause was open to discussion. I also read what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said. He clearly said that none of us wished court proceedings to be broadcast. If the Attorney-General would do me the courtesy of listening, he would appreciate why we intend to divide the House. The language of the new clause faithfully reflects our desire not to have court proceedings broadcast.
It is clear from the debate where the consensus in the House lies. I fear that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was a voice crying in a wilderness that he does not even share with the ghost of Phillimore. I believe that in other circumstances we could have done a deal. There was a great deal of force in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) said. I do not see why that could not have been accommodated, given good will on all sides.
We appreciate, of course, the advantage of the advice being circulated by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office and of the practice directions, but they are no substitute for a clause in the Bill. We therefore propose to divide the House. I hope that Back Benchers on both sides will help to bring home to the Government the consequences of ignoring what is clearly a consensus across the Floor of both the Committee and the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 150.

Division No. 221]
[6.10 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Hooley, Frank


Alton, David
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brotherton, Michael
Leighton, Ronald


Buchan, Norman
Lestor, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McCartney, Hugh


Canavan, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carmichael, Neil
McElhone, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Robin F.
McNally, Thomas


Cowans, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, J. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dalyell, Tam
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dewar, Donald
Newens, Stanley


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dormand, Jack
Pendry, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Faulds, Andrew
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


George, Bruce
Silverman, Julius


Graham, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Soley, Clive


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Spearing, Nigel


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Stoddart, David


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin






Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Wainwright, H. (Colne V)



White, Frank R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Whitlock, William
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Blackburn, John
McCrindle, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Macfarlane, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
MacGregor, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bright, Graham
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Brinton, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Madel, David


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Major, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Marlow, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Mates, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butcher, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Chapman, Sydney
Moate, Roger


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Molyneaux, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Monro, Hector


Clegg, Sir Walter
Montgomery, Fergus


Colvin, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Myles, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Elliott, Sir William
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Percival, Sir Ian


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Forman, Nigel
Rathbone, Tim


Fox, Marcus
Renton, Tim


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Glyn, Dr Alan
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Goodhew, Victor
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Goodlad, Alastair
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gray, Hamish
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Greenway, Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Speed, Keith


Grylls, Michael
Spence, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Squire, Robin


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanley, John


Hannam, John
Steen, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Stevens, Martin


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Hayhoe, Barney
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heddle, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Henderson, Barry
Tebbit, Norman


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Thompson, Donald


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Trippier, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Viggers, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Wakeham, John


Lang, Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, B. (Perth)


Lee, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ward, John





Watson, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wickenden, Keith
Mr. Carol Mather and


Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Mr. John Cope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: I have given considerable thought to the representations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), but I cannot alter the selection list.

Mr. John Morris: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration of my representations.

New Clause 2

DISCLOSURE FOLLOWING DISCOVERY

'It is not contempt to make use of a document disclosed on discovery when and to the extent that the contents have been read aloud in open court for the purpose of assisting journalists or others to report or comment on the trial or matters raised in the proceedings'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause arises from the case involving Miss Harriet Harman. On Second Reading we discussed the subject extensively. In Committee we returned to it in some detail. The new clause we then moved was substantially wider than the one before us today. This new clause is much more restricted. It deals first with documents that have been disclosed upon discovery. Secondly, it deals with documents that have been read aloud in open court. Thirdly, it covers the situation where the showing of documents is done to assist journalists or others to report or comment on the trial, or matters raised in the proceedings. Therefore, the new clause has a narrower base than the new clause that we moved in Committee.
In Committee, I pointed out that a difficulty arose in view of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Harman case. Year in, year out, most of us involved in the courts have assisted journalists who wanted clarification, assistance with facts, the names of documents and a host of other matters in order to ensure accurate reporting of matters that have been heard in open court. That applies both to matters that have been revealed upon discovery and read out in open court and to any other matters that have been raised in open court and that do not involve the process of discovery.
In particular, in Committee I raised the problem of official law reporters. We rely on them heavily for the published reports in order to cite precedents in subsequent cases. As I understand the Court of Appeal's decision, a practitioner in the courts would not be able to assist a law reporter, let alone a journalist. Whatever one may feel about other aspects of the Harman case, it would be a grave loss to the courts, to practitioners and to those who seek clarification of the law, if the facts reported were inaccurate as a result of an inability on the part of journalists to seek assistance—as they now do—from counsel and solicitors and to see documents. That is a difficulty.
There are restrictions when the court is sitting in camera. In Committee, the Attorney-General and I drew attention to the practice of silent reading. Counsel may invite the judge to read documents silently in order to save embarrassment or for other proper reasons. That protects the interests of the parties involved and avoids the undue broadcasting of matters raised in court. There are other restrictions as regards children and matrimonial matters. In Committee, I was not persuaded—to put it as mildly, neutrally and moderately as possible—by the Attorney-General's argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that parties in the courts would seek to exercise the priviledge—by agreement one presumes—of more restricted discovery much more generally than hitherto and that the losers would be the public.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has turned the argument on its head. The Attorney-General mentioned only matrimonial matters in passing, because it is a nonstarter. His last injuction to the Committee was that we were dealing with a case that was on its way to the other place. He said that we should leave it to the other place to settle. He implied, that with its enormous experience, the other place—sitting in its judicial capacity—would clear up the unsatisfactory state of the law.
Unhappily—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) pointed out—if the Bill makes the progress that the Government anticipate, it will have gone through all its stages and will have received Royal Assent well before the Harman case reaches the other place acting in its appellate jurisdiction. That is an unhappy feature of the Bill. As a result we do not know how far we can rely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances and injunctions to the effect that we can leave it to the other place to sort out and that we can rely on its great wisdom. The matter is left to chance.
The subject matter is sub judice, although it will not affect the appeal per se. As you rightly said, Mr. Speaker, we can nevertheless discuss the merits of the issue as they appertain to current legislation. The House is in a difficulty. Hon. Members are uncertain about the state of the law. It may or may not be anticipated that the Court of Appeal's judgment will be set on one side. New legislation is being brought in at a time when the situation is crying out for amendment. In Committee the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) argued that if the judgment of the other place went the other way, there would be another occasion for Parliament to return to the subject and to deal with this aspect of contempt. Unhappily, we rarely get Bills on contempt.
It was the present Lord Chancellor—and I pay him full tribute—who set up the Phillimore committee. Then another Government came into office. Unhappily that Government, of which I was proud to be a member, did not do anything about Phillimore, because they were legislating in a whole host of other fields. We had to wait for the second appearance of the Lord Chancellor to get some drive behind the implementation of parts of the Phillimore report and other aspects as well.
6.30 pm
If we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity there may not be another opportunity for many years. What is the real cause of disquiet? The real cause of disquiet, following the Harman case, is that whether the public become aware generally of what is said in open court depends upon the accident of whether there is a reporter

in court. If there happens not to be—as I understand the position to have been in the Harman case—and that reporter is briefed thereafter on the matters which have been read out in open court, then, as the law now stands following the decision of the Court of Appeal, whoever shows documents which have been revealed on discovery, as in the case of Miss Harman, can be said to be in contempt of court.
The general public believe that that kind of situation reveals the law to be an ass. When matters are read out in open court and a reporter is present and reports that matter in the newspaper the following day nothing can be said about it. Nothing improper is done. But if no reporter is present and is briefed the following day, or a few days afterwards, something horrendous has happened. A grave contempt of court has been committed. I think words to that effect were used by one, if not more, of the judges. Our courts, unless there is a contrary injunction, are open courts. We are proud that they are open courts. It is important that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.
To find ourselves in the preposterous situation whereby contempt and all its powers and effects come into play depending upon the accident of a reporter being present or being briefed thereafter shows our procedures and our law to be in a state of ridicule. The situation appears to depend on the sharpness or the accuracy of the reporter's pencil.
If our courts are public, open courts, I believe it is right and proper that that report should be as accurate as possible. It is no good having inaccurate reports. That, in itself, is a mischief which we can well avoid. Therefore, while the clause deals only with a narrow aspect of the case we have sought to meet the situation and remedy the sense of injustice that now exists. We seek to deal with the situation where documents have been read aloud. Our aim is to assist those who wish to report or comment. If this new clause is accepted, it should be declared in all subsequent matters that such action is no longer contempt of court.

Mr. J. Grimond: Long ago I was called to the Bar. I even practised for a year. I have on occasion even substituted in court for the present learned Lord Chancellor. Those days are far past and I speak entirely as a layman, but I think that some laymen should speak up about this. I wholly adopt what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench. The law is in grave danger of malting itself an ass if, indeed, it is not an ass already. I understood from reading the case from which this matter arose that the argument against the solicitor was that she had given an explicit undertaking that she would not disclose this document. Whether that should really have counted as an adequate reason for holding her in contempt of court, I do not know. Certainly if she did give an explicit undertaking it seems to me to make the case slightly different from what has been represented. There may be some reason for saying she transgressed—

Mr. Christopher Price: This accusation has been made on a number of occasions. It has been necessary to set the record straight on a number of occasions. The only undertaking Miss Harman gave in this case was to deal with these discovered documents according to the normally understood rules whereby discovered documents are dealt with by solicitors. She gave no greater or lesser undertaking than that. As I understand it, the only


argument is whether those normal rules include allowing journalists to see documents that are read out in open court.

Mr. Grimond: If I have done Miss Harman an injustice, of course, I withdraw. I do not think it is germane to my main argument, which is on the side of the clause. But I had understood, and I understand I was wrong, that she had given an undertaking that she would not disclose this particular document. However, it seems to me that if a document is read out in open court and it it is agreed that the court should be open—it is not subject to various rulings about matters taken in private, in camera, and so forth—it is ridiculous that it cannot be given to anyone to study exactly what it said.
It seems to me that this is even more the case in view of what was said on an earlier amendment about tape recorders. Surely, if tape recorders can be used in courts, they can be played over afterwards and out of court and will presumably contain the contents of documents which may have been mentioned in court. Therefore, it seems wholly illogical to me—and I think that to the ordinary members of the public it seems slightly absurd—that if this rule exists it should continue. The only question I have about the wording of the clause is that, as I understand it, it is confined to journalists or to others who are reporting or commenting upon a trial.
I am a trustee of a newspaper and I am very sympathetic towards journalists, but I do not quite see why they should be put in a semi-privileged position. If it is in order to tape record proceedings—and I do not see why they should not be played over to anyone for any purpose—I do not understand why it is only journalists or others who wish to report or comment on the trial who should be allowed the use of a document. If it is right that the document should be used at all, and I think it is if it has been disclosed in open court, it seems that all should be entitled to use the document. They may be people interested in the trial, they may be relations of one of the parties, or they may be writing a history of the matter.

Mr. John Morris: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the way that I addressed the House. When we discussed the matter in Committee we had a much wider amendment in which we said:
It is hereby declared that the obligation to protect and maintain the confidentiality of the contents of a document disclosed to a party to litigation or his agent terminates if and to the extent that the contents of the document are read aloud in open court in proceedings which are not subject to any limitation in reporting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 May 1981; c. 247.]
We took the bull by the horns. The moment the matter had been read aloud in open court any question of contempt ceased. We did not expect a further discussion on an amendment as wide as that on Report.

Mr. Grimond: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he sympathises with what I am saying, but for purely technical reasons has had to be restrictive.
Speaking as a layman not versed in the niceties of the law, and leaving aside the correct procedures of the House, I hope that the Attorney-General will either give a good reason in common sense why the clause should be rejected, or accept it in its wider form and agree with the

layman's view that, if a document has been properly read aloud in court, it becomes public. It is important that the accuracy of the document should he established and therefore that direct reference should be made to it. If the proceedings are in public, there can be no harm in as wide a public as is interested getting to know what is going on in court. I hope that the Attorney-General, with his usual willingness to give common sense the edge over legal niceties, will agree to accept the clause, or something like it.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that in your infinite wisdom you selected the clause for debate. It must have been a bit of a battle. It is right that the House should return to this issue as often as possible, so that the public at large are made aware of the problems. It is right that we should discuss the issue when it is technically sub judice, just to remind ourselves that we can break our own sub judice rule when legislation on this matter is in progress. If a quarrel arose about which was the most important, it would be shown to be the High Court of Parliament and not the High Court of Justice.
The House of Lords in its judicial capacity will announce its decision on this issue no earlier than September of this year, and perhaps a good deal later. I am amazed at the judicial flexibility of the House of Lords. In the Tameside case in 1968, when the Court of Appeal finished hearing the case on Thursday, the House of Lords sat on Friday and Saturday to make sure that the case was disposed of in time for the Conservative Tameside borough council to allocate children to schools before the beginning of the summer holiday.
You will remember the case, Mr. Speaker, as you were concerned with several debates under Standing Order No. 9. The House of Lords showed a nimble flexibility, an ability to rush into instant judgment. The House of Commons is in difficulties, largely of the Government's making—the Government brought the Harman case and instituted this legislation almost simultaneously—yet the House of Lords shows no such dispatch and seems unable to dispose of this matter until well after the prospective date for Royal Assent to the Bill.
The argument that prevailed by one vote in Committee was that we should leave this matter to be disposed of by the House of Lords and come back to it later. I much disagreed with that. There is no harm in our giving the matter a full airing before the House of Lords in its judicial capacity considers it. Of course, the House of Lords is unaffected by anything said in this Chamber. Their Lordships' minds are neutral, but a little airing does their neutral minds no harm. That is the second reason why I am glad that you selected this new clause, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House of Lords in its legislative capacity will also discuss it.
6.45 pm
We are discussing on this clause the principle that we discussed in the previous debate—the openness of justice. The Harman case came about because the legal adviser to the Home Office—I acquit the Attorney-General of any hand in this—decided to take Miss Harman to court for contempt, to punish her for doing something which solicitors do day in, day out, in the courts—showing to a journalist a document that has been read out in open court.
The case was taken not because it was an intrusion into privacy or to protect an individual who might be harmed, but to cover up something that is a proper matter of public


interest, particularly parliamentary interest, namely, the state of our prisons and the rules laid down for the control unit that was briefly introduced in Wakefield gaol, I am sad to say, by the Home Secretary in a Labour Government. That is what was disclosed to the court and about which David Leigh wrote a feature article in The Guardian.
The Home Office did not have to take Miss Harman to court. It had many options. By taking her to court the Home Office showed that it was irrevocably committed to a closed system of government which does not accord with the general view of the House, as shown by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides, particularly by Conservative Members, who either voted with Labour Members or abstained in our recent vote on tape recording.
In bringing the case, the Home Office was wholly out of accord with the general view of the country about openness and with the general view of the House, taken on a free vote. Some of our senior judges are also at odds with that view. I shall be careful what I say about Lord Denning, but I should like to quote verbatim from what he said in his judgment on the Harman case in the Court of Appeal. Speaking of the documents, Lord Denning said:
It was in the public interest that they should remain confidential. The use made of them by the journalist in the present case was highly detrimental to the good ordering of our society. They had been used to launch a wholly unjustified attack on ministers of state"— 
as though Ministers of State are unused to attacks—
and high civil servants, who were only doing their very best to deal with a wicked criminal who had harassed society and was serving a long sentence for armed robbery.
The Times Law Report said:
It made his Lordship regret that the court had ever ordered disclosure of the documents. The legal milestone would have to be taken up and set back a bit.
I quote that passage in the context of the clause to show the sort of ministerial and judicial environment in which Parliament is legislating. We are operating in an environment in which too many people in our Government and judiciary do not believe in the openness in which a majority of the Committee Members believe.
To ensure that the law is on all fours with the atmosphere in the Committee, the House should be disposed to vote for the clause, even though it does not go nearly as far as I should like it to go. The reasons for that have been explained. To have the clause selected, it had to be cast in that form.
I shall say a little about the argument used in Committee about asking the House of Lords to settle the matter judicially before we returned to it. The Attorney-General asked us to let the House of Lords deal with it and we could return to it. The truth is that we shall not come back to it. We have legislation on contempt of court only when Governments are forced to have it.
It is no credit to the Government that we are discussing the Bill. The credit for that lies with Mr. Harold Evans and The Sunday Times, for taking the Thalidomide case to Strasbourg, and to the judges at Strasbourg, who produced the judgment that would have forced the Government of either party to bring in legislation to ensure that our law accords with the Convention on Human Rights, which the Government have signed and pledged themselves to follow. It was convenient to throw in Phillimore, juries and one or two other things, but that was the only reason that forced the Bill into the legislative timetable.
I cannot see an opportunity for that to happen in the near future. That is an additional reason for us to pass the clause now, without waiting for the House of Lords.

The Attorney-General: First, I shall answer one or two points that have been made in the debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned law reporters. Law reporters are not forbidden to go to the parties. They can go to the party whose document they require. I should have thought that it would be impossible that that party would not make available to a law reporter anything that he needed to make his law report accurate. That is a poor point.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—what a lovely sound that constituency has—raised another matter. I should explain about the correspondence. It all falls on two documents—a document from the Treasury Solicitor written to Miss Harman on 17 October and her reply. A number of documents were produced as a result of a claim for public interest immunity and some were received by the judge before the case started. He ruled that the prejudicial effect to the party outweighed the value of the immunity claim.
The letter said that the Home Office
does however, require that inspection of the disclosed documents and dissemination of their contents should be limited to the legal officers of the NCCL and their assistants at any time concerned with the conduct of this action, except in so far as wider inspection or dissemination is strictly necessary for the conduct of the action. In other words my client would not wish the documents to be used for the general purposes of the NCCL outside your function as solicitor for the plaintiff.
In her reply, Miss Harman wrote:
As far as 'the general purposes of the NCCL' is concerned you may rest assured that, as a solicitor, I am well a ware of the rule that requires that documents obtained on discovery should not be used for any other purpose except for the case in hand".
That was the undertaking given.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the Attorney-General not agree that many solicitors who are sent the sort of conditions that he has read feel that that still allows them to show documents read in open court to journalists where necessary?

The Attorney-General: I have discussed that with many solicitors. Most have thought that the court's decision in this case was right because it protects the client. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
The matter was discussed fully in Committee and I repeat again the point I made then. It would be wrong for the new clause to be discussed solely by reference to Miss Harman or to the Harman case—first, because there is an appeal pending in another place, and, secondly, because amendments to legislation based wholly on the facts of an individual case are so often unsound.
Time after time, the cry from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee when we were dealing with the starting point of strict liability—I was referring to the publicity when Sutcliffe was arrested—was that hard cases made bad law. Now I shall use that claim in this case.
The issues raised in the new clause should not be considered simply with the Home Office in mind because they apply to all litigation and litigants—large or small, rich or poor, corporate or private. Likewise, the amendment applies equally across the board. The issues have little if anything to do with open government because in the majority of cases to which the new clause will apply


the parties have nothing to do with the Government. It is a matter of civil contempt, unlike the rest of the Bill, which deals with criminal contempt.
One other matter I should like to get rid of straight away is the suggestion that that case has any connection with freedom of the press. It has nothing to do with it. The case referred to the mutual obligations of parties to litigation and their legal advisers about documents which one side was forced to produce to the other. The only reason I think the case has become associated with the press in the minds of some people is that the documents were disclosed to a journalist. There was never a question of contempt proceedings against that journalist or any other representative of the press. In principle, the issue would have been the same if the documents had been used for any other purpose unconnected with the proceedings.
I do not want to go through the history of discovery, which is well known to the lawyers in the House. Even the short-term lawyers may remember about it. It is a method by which one side can be compelled to produce documents that are relevant to the issues in the case to which he is a party. Because exceptional power is granted, the courts have always been jealous to ensure that documents are guarded by the solicitor who obtains them, and, in a sense, becomes a trustee for them. It applies as much to bus tickets as to the most fiery love letters.
The rule is simple. If a litigant is bound to hand over documents to his opponent, documents to which ordinarily the opponent would have no right, it is on the footing that the documents are used only for the business in hand. The moment one departed an inch from that rule, and there was a risk that one party might feel that the other side would use those documents for a purpose unconnected with the action, we should find the general standards of honesty in disclosure reduced, if not badly eroded. People would hide, and not disclose in their list or affidavit of documents, documents that they did not want disclosed, not because they were trying to cheat the opponent but because they did not want the wider publicity.
What will happen when an undertaking has been given and the documents are read in open court? It would be ridiculous if we were forced to the stage where the party who owns the documents says to the judge "It is a bundle of 600 pages. Your Lordship has it, my learned Friend has it. May it please be read silently?" That would achieve the same result of preventing any document from being handed to the press.
We must discover what use is to be made of a document in connection with the proceedings—whether it is essential that it is used only in connection with the proceedings to meet the obligation of the party who has obtained the documents. In our view, that is the right way to do it. That view has been upheld by a High Court judge and the Court of Appeal and is pending hearing in the House of Lords.
Without being in any sense critical of those who drafted it, when I read the new clause I thought that it looked as if the reading of the document allowed in court was simply for the purpose of assisting journalism. I suspect that it could easily be construed that way, but, assuming that that is not its purpose, the clause, if passed, would release that solicitor from his trust.

7 pm
What are the circumstances in which that could happen? Let us take the ordinary case of a journalist writing a report on the case. If he fails to get a note of what was said in court or could not hear properly, he has the option of going to the party whose documents they are and asking to see them. Lord Justice Dunn, one of the members of the Court of Appeal that decided the case, said:
If a reporter wishes to check … the exact wording of a document, he or she can always ask the counsel or solicitor for the party who has disclosed the document. I have never known such a request to be refused even in the case of private and confidential documents.
That is the way that Miss Harman should have dealt with the journalist. She should have said "No. These documents are in my hands with strict control upon them. Apply to the Home Office for leave to have them."

Mr. Grimond: My question may be extremely elementary. The Lord Chief Justice may give a direction about the use of tape recorders and they may be used on a considerable scale. If a recording is made of a document that has been disclosed, will a person who plays the recording to someone else be liable for contempt of court? I do not ask whether they would be prosecuted for contempt or civil contempt, but merely liable.

The Attorney-General: That is contempt between parties. It is not criminal contempt. It is the case of one party being allowed to go to court to say "My opponent has broken the rules of contempt." If a recording was made by a journalist present with his tape recorder, there would be no breach.
The Lord Chancellor has undertaken to look again at the matter. If we extend the provisions in the way that the new clause wishes, we may have to look at the classes of privilege that might need to be extended. I imagine that courts might have to be readier to allow what I call silent reading—which, in fact, is a contradiction in terms—of documents in court.
It is also very valuable to hear the views of the House of Lords. The point that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) makes—that this is a real opportunity to deal with the matter—is not right. Administration of justice Bills are constantly going through the House. I am advised by my noble Friend that the matter is just the sort of thing that could properly be dealt with in such a Bill, after the House of Lords has ruled on it, which is what I invite the House to do.

Mr. John Morris: I shall not pursue the Attorney-General's point about silent reading being a contradiction in terms. He may read loudly, but I normally read silently.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not as helpful as he might have been. I shall not use the strong language that he used against the Opposition Front Bench when he was dealing with the issue of law reporters who would not be forbidden to see documents. I puzzled for a moment about what he meant. I tried to distinguish between law reporters and reporters from Lloyd's Law Reports, the Estates Gazette or any other magazine that publishes a law report, but I realised that he was starting up a completely false hare.
No one is suggesting that law reporters would be forbidden to see documents. No one is suggesting that law reporters would be in difficulty. It is the person showing the document to the law reporter who would be in


contempt. The difficulty arises for the person who shows the document to a reporter from The Times or The Guardian, the official law reporter or anyone else. I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me for this, but he was not being as helpful as he might be in pursuing a false point.
Therefore, we come to this situation. If there is a reporter present in court, or in the alternative, if a judge allows a tape recording to be made without the reporter being present, no difficulty arises. However, if by chance no reporter is present in court and no tape recording is made, but the reporter who wishes to comment or report on the case thereafter goes to one of the parties to the process of discovery, that party is in jeopardy of contempt. The law is ludicrous. I hope that in due course the House of Lords will reverse the judgment that caused the matter to arise.
However, we are more concerned with the generality of the position to ensure that the problem does not arise again. I forgive the Attorney-General completely. He can be exonerated from blame for the Home Office's activities. We suspect that he was not consulted at all. I do not ask him to rise to confirm or deny that. That is the general impression. It was a piece of private enterprise by the Home Office, and I hope that in due course it will have its come-uppance from the House of Lords.
However, in the meantime the law is seen by the public to be an ass. The situation is ludicrous. Documents are read out in open court. They are public to all within earshot, but if, by chance, there is no one there with the means of mechanism to transfer the information to a wider audience, contempt can arise. I, therefore, wish to press the matter to a Division, and to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 136.

Division No. 222]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Beith, A. J.
Haynes, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D, (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Buchan, Norman
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cook, Robin F.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Craigen, J. M.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Crowther, J. S.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McElhone, Frank


Dalyell, Tam
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, Ioan (Abordare)
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Faulds, Andrew
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Golding, John
Robertson, George


Graham, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





Rowlands, Ted
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Silverman, Julius
Whitehead, Phillip


Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Soley, Clive
Wigley, Dafydd


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stoddart, David



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Gavin
Mr. Frank R. White and


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Loveridge, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Lyell, Nicholas


Berry, Hon Anthony
McCrindle, Robert


Best, Keith
Macfarlane, Neil


Blackburn, John
MacGregor, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Braine, Sir Bernard
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Bright, Graham
McQuarrie, Albert


Brinton, Tim
Madel, David


Brotherton, Michael
Major, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Marlow, Tony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Mates, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Mather, Carol


Butcher, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Molyneaux, James


Clegg, Sir Walter
Monro, Hector


Colvin, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Cope, John
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Myles, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Dorrell, Stephen
Needham, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Nelson, Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Newton, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Elliott, Sir William
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Emery, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Proctor, K. Harvey


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Forman, Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fox, Marcus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhew, Victor
Speed, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Spence, John


Gow, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gray, Hamish
Stanley, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Steen, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stevens, Martin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Hannam, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Haselhurst, Alan
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Thompson, Donald


Hayhoe, Barney
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Heddle, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Henderson, Barry
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Waddington, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wakeham, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Watson, John


Knox, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lang, Ian
Wells, Bowen


Lawrence, Ivan
Wheeler, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Wickenden, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Williams, D.(Montgomery)






Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Robert Boscawen and



Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

DEFENCE OF INNOCENT PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 3 in page 2, line 8, at end insert
'or does not know of and has no reason to suspect the existence of any fact or facts by reason whereby that rule applies to the matter in question'.
This amendment arises from a matter that I ventured to raise in Committee. We have spent some time in the course of the Bill's progress discussing the proper extent of the strict liability rule. I have only to say that hon. Members are agreed about a matter to introduce a note of dissension. But all hon. Members have agreed that there is need to keep a careful balance between the right of free speech and the right to a fair trial. There is always room for further discussion about whether the balance is exactly right. I hope that Opposition Members have kept an open mind on the subject. I am bound to say that the Government, by and large, have done so. This is especially important when we discuss the balance of the strict liability rule. It is an exception to the rule that normally people should be subject to a penalty only where they intended to infringe the law.
I quoted in Committee from the learned authors of "Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law" who stated:
The case against strict liability, then, is, first, that it is unnecessary. It results in the conviction of persons who have behaved impeccably and who should not be required to alter their conduct in any way. Secondly, that it is unjust. Even if an absolute discharge be given, the defendant may feel rightly aggrieved at having been formally convicted of an offence for which he bore no responsibility.
That is a fair assessment of our normal reactions to the strict liability rule. But there are reasons in certain cases for excluding the normal defence that one offended only unintentionally. Basically, the rule, to paraphrase Phillimore, concentrates the mind. It encourages people not to take risks. That is a justifiable approach when the risks are being taken with other people's rights to justice. But it means that we have to be particularly careful about getting the balance right, and clause 3 is designed to do that. It introduces two defences to proceedings under the strict liability rule.
The question arises whether it should not be amended to include a third defence. The argument arises in this way. Let us suppose that the risk of prejudice that causes the publication to infringe the rule arises from a fact that could not possibly be known. I shall give an example. Let us suppose that it is intended in proceedings to call a particular person as a witness. Let us suppose that that fact is not known generally, and normally there is no reason why it should be known until the proceedings take place. Let us suppose that a newspaper editor publishes an article about that person, saying that no one in their right mind would believe a word that he says and that anyone who associated with him is probably dishonest. That, clearly, would introduce a substantial risk of prejudicing those proceedings, so it would fall within the strict liability rule.
In the present state of the Bill, it would be no defence to say that the fact that that person was to be called as a

witness could not have been known to the editor who published the article. I ventured to raise that problem in Committee, and the Attorney-General kindly said that he would consider the matter. We assume that he has done so, and we now invite him to give us a progress report.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): I understand and appreciate the concern of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that the balance of interests in securing justice for the individual, protection of the system of justice, and freedom of the press, which is part of the same process, is a balance which we are all anxious to get right, and something about which none of us on either side would wish to have a closed mind.
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the amendment does not advance the position at all. In Committee he spoke with great sincerity, and we all admired the line that he took. The amendment would not change the situation in any way. On the other hand, it might give rise to the opportunity to prejudice the individual by advancing arguments of ignorance which, without it, would perhaps not be available.
There is no attempt, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates, to muzzle the press. It is an attempt to ensure that proper caution is taken in all circumstances. The example that he gave was perhaps a good one of how one can throw caution to the winds on the basis of ignorance. To be fair to him, I cannot imagine how a newspaper would come to publish an article saying that someone who happened to be about to be a witness, or turned out to be a witness, was a person that no one should believe in any circumstances.
I have never read such an article. I can only imagine that it would be published subject to the defence that the newspaper was ignorant that the person was to be called as a witness. One could say to oneself "I wonder who will be called as a witness. I do not know. I can justifiably claim ignorance, and I shall then write in an article that I think that the witnesses may not be satisfactory." For example, the editor might know that criminal proceedings were pending, but he might claim that he did not know that identity was an issue, and publish a photograph. He might claim that he did not know that alibi was to be a defence, and publish an article about the whereabouts of the person. It is not a question of restricting the right of the press.
The safeguards in the Bill are such that a scrupulous person who is involved in the publication of material about a person involved in any litigation or criminal proceedings will be put on caution, and, with great respect, the amendment does not advance the position to the advantage of liberty of the press. Indeed, it might prejudice the administration of justice.

Mr. Archer: With the greatest respect to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I find his argument extraordinary. His objection to the amendment is that it would give an opportunity of what he called "advancing arguments of ignorance". That is exactly what it is designed to do. We think that that opportunity should be given to people who can say honestly that they were ignorant. He then said that it would encourage people to throw caution to the winds. I do not see how being cautious can enable a person to know what legal advisers are proposing to do when they have not yet done it and have not announced it publicly.
The example that I gave must be less than clear. I was not postulating an example where a newspaper editor


published an article about the case. I postulated an example where he had no reason to associate the person with any case that was pending, but published an article about that person.
However, we have to decide whether we wish to divide on the amendment. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it s a matter of balance on which we can perhaps always have further thoughts. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said earlier, unhappily we do not have many contempt Bills in which to enshrine our further thoughts. But we do not feel sufficiently strongly that we are right and the Government are wrong to carry the matter to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

CONSENT REQUIRED FOR INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 17, leave out from 'proceedings)' to 'with' in line 18 and insert
'shall not be instituted except by or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this, we are to take Government amendments Nos.
19, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

The Attorney-General: Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are a consequence of the Government's acceptance in Committee of the new clause which is now clause 7. The amendments are straightforward. I pointed out in Committee, when I said that I felt bound by the will of the Committee, that certain changes would be necessary, and I outlined them. These are the tidying-up amendments to give effect to what I then said.
The first point is that, by saying that proceedings should not be instituted, the clause at present does not impose an absolute requirement. I suspect that that is what was originally intended. Also, there is no provision for the Attorney-General himself to take proceedings. Obviously, that is desirable. Those two legs form the first part of the amendment.
The second amendment saves—I dealt with this matter in Committee—the inherent jurisdiction of the courts which have jurisdiction to do so—in this context, superior courts of record—to institute proceedings on their own motion. I imagine that there will be no complaint about preserving that power.
I shall deal with a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about the European Convention. We were both seeking to clarify the issue, not arguing against each other. We may have reached the same end by different means. I shall outline our present thinking on the matter.
The risk is still so slight that we can virtually disregard it being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. However, it may help the right hon. and learned Gentleman if I go into some detail about our reasons for reaching that conclusion. A contempt of the sort that we are considering, which is a breach of the strict liability rule, could undoubtedly constitute an interference with the accused person's right of trial, which is guaranteed by article 6 of the convention, leaving aside the theory of "drittwirkung", whether this applies to individuals or to

States alone. There could still be an argument that the State itself would be in violation of the convention if it provided no remedy for such a breach.
That argument might be reinforced if, as a result of the amendment, a public authority—which, unfortunately, I am—could be said to have blocked resort to a remedy that otherwise existed. That would be a breach of article 6, read together with article 13. That is the sort of case that might be made against the Government.
7.30 pm
We do not need to renege on the Committee's decision because the argument treats the proceedings for contempt as being the accused person's only and proper remedy to secure a fair trial, or his remedy for having been denied a fair trial. Much evidence shows that the contempt proceedings are not intended for that purpose alone. Their primary purpose, as was said by Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, in 1953, was to punish the editor who had committed contempt, not to assist the defence.
The accused person's rights to a fair trial is to be vindicated not in contempt proceedings but in the proceedings in the trial court or, if necessary, on appeal from that court. It is there that the article 6 rights are protected. It is there, not in seperate contempt proceedings, that the accused person has the remedy required by article 13.
Although the Government and the Opposition have reached the same conclusion, it is by a slightly different route. We are not likely to find ourselves in trouble in Strasbourg if we allow the clause to stand. We must take the view that the primary purpose of the clause is to cut down a possible restriction on free reporting and commenting and to enhance the protection of freedom of expression that is guaranteed by article 10. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates why I felt it necessary to go into a little detail. There is no significant risk that could force us to reconsider the position.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 are consequential upon new clause 7. Northern Ireland is covered as well as England and Wales. There is an Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, who at this time happens to be the same person as the Attorney-General for England and Wales. That may not always be the case. Indeed, it was not the case until Stormont was abolished. We need the three amendments to cover that possibility.
Amendment No. 26 is consequential upon the addition of new clause 7. In its own terms, new clause 7 does not apply to Scottish proceedings. The amendment adds to the list of provisions that do not extend to Scotland. I do not think that there is any controversy about any of the amendments.

Mr. Archer: I confirm that there is nothing controversial about the amendment. I rise simply to say that we are grateful to the Attorney-General for explaining the Government's thinking, especially on the point relating to the European convention. In Committee each of us tried to consider the matter virtually off the cuff because it had only just been raised. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, we seem to have reached the same conclusion by a slightly different route. An old proverb about great minds might apply.
I wish to elaborate slightly on what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. My recollection is that, although there


is no Solicitor-General for Northern Ireland, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is now either the Attorney-General for England and Wales or the Solicitor-General—

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Archer: Perhaps my recollection is wrong. I did think that that was the statutory provision. It does not really matter because it is not relevant to the amendments. We do not wish to persuade the House to resist the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 3, line 18, at end add
'or on the motion of a court having jurisdiction to deal with it'.—

[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 8

SCOPE OF JURISDICTION TO PROTECT INFERIOR COURTS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move Government amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 20, leave out clause 8.
The amendment is the consequence of an undertaking that I gave in Committee. Because of the difficulties which I was told were being experienced, especially by editors of provincial newspapers, I felt that unless I could find a suitable list that could be attached to the then clause 7 by the time that we reached Report, I would abandon clause 7, which is now clause 8. In spite of a great deal of endeavour, and some skilled thinking by Sir Noel Hutton—we have benefited from that throughout the course of the Bill—we have been unable to draw up a list that does not draw distinctions that are too hard to defend. I thought that we might have got it right, but because of objections to a list of such length we decided to abandon clause 7, now clause 8.
As has been said, it means that the uncertainty remains, although in a slightly different form. It will no longer be necessary for in-house lawyers or Mr. Carter-Ruck to construe the meaning of old clause 7. It puts the position back to what it was before the Bill was published.

Mr. Archer: I hope that the Attorney-General will not think that there is no pleasing the Opposition. However, I am bound to say that I share the anxiety that was referred to in a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a few moments to explain how we got ourselves into this position.
The clause is included in the Bill because of the difficulty raised by the decision in another place in the case of the Attorney-General v The BBC. The question that arose was about which inferior courts and tribunals the High Court had jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Judical Committee in another place made it clear that there were good reasons of social policy why the list should not be extended too widely. In Committee I quoted from the speeches of Lord Salmon and Lord Fraser. In the interests of time I shall not repeat them. They were not anxious to widen the scope. It was agreed that it should be confined to courts.
Lord Scarman used the expression "which exercised the judical power of the State." and that expression found its way into clause 8. That is surprising, for two reasons. First, it is clearly a well-chosen expression when giving judgment in litigation, where the whole chain of reasoning has already been set in context. It is quite out of place as part of an Act of Parliament, where there is no way of deciding to which courts and tribunals it applies, and where it might apply separately to all existing 500 tribunals.
Secondly, Lord Scarman clearly used that expression to limit the category to which it applied. He was trying to define courts as opposed to tribunals. In the Bill the expression is
all inferior courts, tribunals and bodies".
The expression has been used not as Lord Scarman intended, namely, to limit the category, but to make the category as wide as possible.
We criticise the decision on two grounds. It was criticised in another place. First, it is much too wide. It would mean that editors could not safely publish anything until they had considered the impact on all 500 categories of tribunal and for each separate one in each locality that might be affected. Secondly, it is illdefined. Editors could never be sure to which of the tribunals and bodies it applied. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said on Second Reading, we are dealing not only with the editors of large Fleet Street publications, with batteries of lawyers at their elbow, but with the legal advisers to local publications, on which so many of us depend for telling our local electors what we are doing.
In Committee in another place it was suggested that the Government might substitute a list of bodies for this general attempt at a definition. The Lord Chancellor said that it was impossible to produce such a list. He said, in effect, that his Department, with all its resources, could not produce a satisfactory list, implying that the list should be produced by newspaper editors with far fewer resources.
On Report, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton produced a list to demonstrate that the exercise was possible. It was criticised by the Lord Advocate only on the ground that it was not satisfactory because, for example, it did not include mental health review tribunals. It seemed to us that that omission was fairly easy to rectify. It was a simple matter to reproduce the list and to add mental health review tribunals. On each subsequent occasion when it appeared that an item was missing from the list, it was always possible to amend it.
In Committee in this place we reproduced the list with the addition of mental health review tribunals. It was at that stage that the Attorney-General properly asked for a period of grace to reconsider the issue, and we agreed. What is sauce for the goose may have been sauce for us too. After we gave the matter further consideration, and after we had had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and some of those who were kind enough to write to us, we decided that the list was too long and that it was probably best not to have a list at all.
The then list included tribunals that did not require protection, or where the balance was against imposing on editors the burden of daily research into their case lists. In particular, we thought that we should not have added mental health review tribunals. If someone is detained in a mental hospital, his case may be considered by


experienced tribunal members sitting with a legally qualified chairman. They are unlikely to be diverted from their proper course by newspaper comment. In such circumstances there might be others who wish to discuss the case. Someone may wish to alert the public of the circumstances or communicate them to their Member of Parliament. There seemed to be no reason why both avenues should not be explored simultaneously.
Similarly, it was pointed out to us that an industrial court, the successor to the National Industries Regulations Court—I think the only body in respect of which the Phillimore committee discussed this matter—was not likely to require protection. An industrial court is likely to hear some of its most important cases at the very time when those participating are subject to the maximum public interest—for example, when an industrial stoppage takes place.
We, too, had our second thoughts. We thought that we would like to see the rule applied to a much narrower field. When the Attorney-General was trying commendably to produce a list that would satisfy everyone—as he said, it would have been rather a long list—we were being persuaded that if a list were required at all it would have to be a short one.
Another matter that was not mentioned very much in Committee but which we thought should be considered, was mentioned in another place by Lord Wigoder, who spoke of the distinction between contempt under the strict liability rule and contempt in the face of the court. He suggested that perhaps a tribunal should be protected from violent interruptions and abuse. I take leave to doubt whether the law, even outside the rules of contempt, is not sufficiently robust to deal with any situation of that sort that is likely to arise. In any event, it does not follow that such an event should be brought within the strict liability rule.
Throughout all these debates we have not really heard of any need for the rule. Not one example has been cited of a problem created by prejudice, or the risk of prejudice, to proceedings in a rent tribunal, in a mental health review tribunal or in an industrial tribuanl. If the matter had proceeded, we would have asked questions.
7.45 pm
The Attorney-General is proposing to withdraw the clause. The difficulty is that that restores the common law, as it has been found in another place, to its virgin condition. The difficulty about that is not that it is too wide, because the decision in the Attorney-General v The BBC was clearly authoritative on a restrictive interpretation, but that it is rather vague.
We have had to reconsider our position. It seems that we should all have an opportunity to think about it again. It is our view that we should not resist the Attorney-General's proposal, although it leaves the law in an unsatisfactory state. Discussion should continue when future Bills, which the Attorney-General has been promising, appear before us, when we shall have an opportunity to tidy up all the loose ends that apparently will still be flapping about even after the Bill has reached the statute book. We are content to leave the matter in that state for the moment. I do not wish to pretend that it is totally uncontentious but it will not be divided upon.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not wish to oppose the amendment. The Attorney-General has done the only thing that he could have done by removing the list. However,

its removal goes clean against the declared object of the Bill, which is to produce certainty where uncertainty has existed. There is now once again, a great deal of uncertainty about which tribunals will be considered by the courts to come within the rule and which will not.
I shall go slightly further than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I do not know how soon the Bill will return to another place, but I much hope that the Attorney-General will continue to try to find some way, either while the Bill is in another place or on some future occasion, of making it clear to the press where it stands on tribunals.
We have moved quite a long way further forward in tidying things up in other respects. I do not think that the press on the whole is especially worried about commenting on the affairs of tribunals. It is right that we should allow as much free comment as possible. However, because the debate has been so dominated by lawyers it is necessary to stress that editors and journalists deserve to know where they stand. We must admit that in this instance we have failed to give them the certainty that they wanted, not—withstanding the Phillimore report and the Bill.
I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend. Although the Attorney-General has failed on Report I hope that he will not cease his quest. I hope, further, that at some time we shall be able to make it clear to the press exactly which judicial proceedings, including tribunal proceedings, it may comment upon freely.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

PUBLICATION OF JURY'S DELIBERATIONS

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 29, at beginning insert
'Without prejudice to any rule of law which prohibits disclosures by or approaches to jurors during or after the trial, and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 22.

The Attorney-General: This is probably one of the most difficult matters that we shall deal with on Report. A great deal of anxiety about the clause has been expressed both in Committee and in another place. Anxiety has been expressed outside the House in newspaper articles and during radio broadcasts. Even this morning I heard an eminent QC, who is the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, or certainly a high officer in that association, express anxiety. It has come from those who have wide experience in the criminal courts, who are concerned about the effect that the clause would have upon the sanctity of jury room discussions. I can deal in more detail with that fear when the House discusses amendment No. 14 and other amendments.
The purpose of the amendment is to try to remove the feeling that the clause is the be—all and end all—of any sort of offence of contempt in respect of juries. In another place, my noble Friend the Lord Advocate made it clear on Report that the existing law on contempt was not affected at all. The only reason why the Government amendment has been proposed is the unexpected decision of the divisional court in the New Statesman case.
However the clause is worded, there will always be disagreement about the extent to which prohibition should


go. On the one hand, it could be said that the latitude granted by the Government in the clause is far too wide. On the other hand, if I may deal for a moment with future amendments, it could be argued that the restrictive approach favoured by the Opposition is too narrow. Others will say that the amendment tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) goes too far or is too weak. There is no doubt that we shall hear the views that have been expressed by judges and others during the debate.
The clause was originally designed to plug the gap which arose as a result of the decision in the New Statesman case. The amendment was simply to make it absolutely clear to anyone who reads that clause that it deals only with publication of jury secrets. It does not in any way seek to restrict or limit the existing powers of contempt in respect of improper dealings with jurors. There is no doubt that the threat to take revenge on a juror is contempt. In the New Statesman case, the court said that to attack or to threaten a juror after the trial in order to obtain revenge or for some other purpose connected with the discharge of his duty as a juror would almost certainly be contempt of court.
Other examples were quoted with hair-raising skill by Lord Hutchinson in the debates in the other place. It made me shiver to think of some members of the solicitors' profession in black coats, hovering outside the private exit of the Old Bailey after a retrial, waiting to grab a juror and to discover whether he should not have called a certain witness and whether the juror disagreed with him for that reason. That may be so—I do not know. However, it made exciting reading.

Mr. Lawrence: It is precisely because such an approach was made, albeit through journalistic channels in the New Statesman case, that I understood that my right hon. and learned Friend was introducing the amendment.

The Attorney-General: The approach with which I was concerned and the reason why the amendment has been proposed is to prevent the publication of any part of a jury's deliberation in a way which either identifies the accused or the juror. Finality in a criminal case is absolutely essential. When there has been a verdict, particularly one of acquittal, we cannot have a public retrial based upon apparent accounts given by jurors. If one read the two accounts given as a result of interviews after the Thorpe trial, one in the New Statesman and one in a book, one could not believe that those jurors were sitting on the same jury in the same trial.

Mr. Nick Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend says that the amendment does not in any way repeal the common law powers in respect of contempt. Is there not likely to be uncertainty if the law is partly based on common law and partly on statute? Those who are perhaps not inclined to look up the law books might easily assume that the whole of the law is to be found in the statute. Is there not something to be said for the amendment put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardiner)so that those who wish to know what the law is can go to a single document for it?

The Attorney-General: The purpose of the amendment is to resolve the difficulty about which my hon.

Friend has spoken. It is to remove any doubt about the whole of the law of contempt relating to jurors, which is contained in clause 9. The amendment states:
Without prejudice to any rule of law which prohibits disclosures by or approaches to jurors".
I hope that its purpose will resolve the difficulty which my hon. Friend says now exists by reason of the amendment. I am sorry that I do not understand his point.
I think it would be better if I restrained myself until we reach the other amendments. I do not believe that the purpose of the amendment can be objectionable to anyone. It removes any doubt about the existing law of contempt, although we are legislating solely for publication of what happens in the jury room.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I listened with great interest to the Attorney-General. So far as I understand his amendment, it seems to me wholly unnecessary. The present statement of the law, to quote from Lord Devlin, is as follows:
Jurymen are invested now with judicial immunity. They have full judicial privilege and are not accountable for any thing said or done in the discharge of their office and any threats or language directed towards them as is punishable as contempt of court".
If Lord Devlin be right in that regard, what on earth is the point of the amendment?

Mr. Lawrence: I do not begin to understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman is making that point because he said clearly in Committee that one adverse result of the clause as drafted is
that it will be assumed by many, perhaps rightly, that clause 8 is the only effective sanction against publication of, or inquiry into, jury deliberation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981, c. 186.]
It is to answer that point that my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced the amendment. Whatever else I have to say in due course about juries, it cannot be argued that my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment is other than directly in response to what the hon. and learned Gentleman requested in Committee.

Mr. Thomas: I do not believe that the amendment has that effect. I do not want to trespass on the next amendments to the clause. Most of the points will be best dealt with in debate on those amendments.
The point which the Attorney-General made, about reading accounts given by two jurors on the New Statesman case and not for one moment thinking that they were talking about the same clause, is precisely the mischief of clause 9 in relation to so-called bona fide researchers and others. I shall develop those points and others when we debate the next set of amendments.

Mr. Christopher Price: I agree that most of the discussions on the clause should take place on the next set of amendments. I thought that the Attorney-General was a little unfair to his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) when he dealt with his point. One needs to remember the history of clause 9 and how we reached this point.
The New Statesman published an account by a juror of what went on in the jury room. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that from time to time I write for the New Statesman. It is not a great interest as I am not paid a great deal of money. The New Statesman is not able to do so.
Before publishing that account, the New Statesman took careful advice as to the state of the common law at


that time. As it could find nothing to say that it should not do so, and as it felt that the particular case and the particular verdict in the particular circumstances were proper matters for public comment, it took that editorial decision and published the account.
8 pm
The Attorney-General then quite properly made his decision. There was much concern about the case and the New Statesman was taken to court in the full expectation that the Lord Chief Justice would do his duty and take away the need for Parliament to do what we are now doing. Against all the odds, however, in what one must describe as a not very satisfactory judgment, the New Statesman got off. The Attorney-General was therefore faced with the need to legislate. At the time of that case, I put great pressure on the Attorney-General to the effect that Parliament should decide the broad rules about these things, not a Lord Chief Justice who is occasionally called in to pronounce on a particular issue at a particular time.
The clause was therefore drafted, after wide consultation by the Attorney-General, including consultations with me. That is the present position. Having reached this point, however, the Attorney-General must allow the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that we are only half way there. My point, which has always been that it should be Parliament that lays down the rules for jurors, is also only half met.
As the Attorney-General has said, and as the amendment makes clear, nobody should think that clause 9 represents the whole of the law with regard to the conduct of jurors and those who have contact with them.

Mr. Budgen: Would not it have been very much to the advantage of the New Statesman if it had been able to know clearly and from a statute exactly what its legal position was? On advice, it took a chance which happened to come off. Nevertheless, it is undesirable for the law to be as uncertain as that.

Mr. Price: I agree. Although I go along with this, in retrospect I am not sure whether one clause in a Contempt of Court Bill intended to deal with the Thalidomide decision and Phillimore was the right way to deal with the problem. It should perhaps be dealt with far more comprehensively in a Bill devoted solely to that purpose. Indeed, I thought at one time that it was to be dealt with in that way.
I intervene only to point out that, although the Attorney-General is right to say that he has responded to pressure in Committee to make it clear that the law will be, as it were, hybrid—part statute law and part common law—when the Bill becomes an Act, that does not necessarily make the situation any clearer than it was when the New Statesman had to take the difficult decision whether to publish.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 29 leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 4 and insert—
'(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, it is a Contempt of Court to obtain disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations in any legal proceedings.
(2) This section does not apply where any such particulars are obtained, disclosed or solicited with intent that they should

be published and—

(a) the publication does not identify the particular proceedings in which the deliberations of the jury took place or the names of particular jurors, and does not enable such matters to be identified; and
(b) the consent of the Attorney-General to the publication has been obtained before any such particulars are solicited.


(3) This section does not apply to any disclosure of any such particulars—

(a) in the proceedings in question for the purpose of enabling the jury to arrive at their verdict, or in connection with the delivery of that verdict; or
(b) in any appeal from the verdict of the jury in the proceedings in question; or
(c) in evidence in any subsequent proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to the jury in the first mentioned proceedings.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Gardner: I think it is right to say that the reason for the amendment lies in the fears felt by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the effect that clause 9 in its present form would have upon the future of the jury system. Some of us take the view that if the law were to remain in the form presented in clause 9, the jury system as we know it might be condemned to ultimate extinction. I regard that as a very serious matter indeed. Moreover I have good reason to suppose that many other hon. Members give this problem the same priority as those of us who have studied the matter and have come to the conclusion that the law should not be left in this form.
The New Statesman case is important because the present law was laid down as precisely as it could be although, if I may say so, not very satisfactorily in the judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice. The finding appears to be that a journal may interview a member of a jury after a verdict or indeed a disagreement and it will not amount to a contempt of court provided that what is done does not tend in any way to diminish the finality of the verdict. Many of us regard that as a very unsatisfactory state of the law. Clause 9, which is presumably an attempt to improve on the present state of the law, allows for such disclosures to be published provided that neither the case nor the names of the jurors are identified.
The amendment was originally drafted by the Criminal Bar Association, an association of members of the Bar who specialise in criminal law. The association addressed itself to two pertinent and essential questions. First, should the law ever allow the secrets of the jury room to be disclosed? Secondly, if the secrets of the jury room were to become public, in what circumstances would publication be allowed?
The association was fundamentally opposed to approaches to jurors after a verdict or disagreement because any law which enables a jury of 12 anonymous members of the public to be asked why they reached or did not reach a verdict seemed to the association to be unwarranted and harmful pressure which should not be imposed upon any jury. I believe that the association is correct in that view.
The association expressed the fear that such disclosures
could undermine the whole purpose of jury trials".
I believe that that fear is justified.

Mr. Christopher Price: I take the point about approaches to and pressure on jurors, and there is widespread agreement on that, but the hon. and learned


Gentleman's amendment appears to go a little further with the word "obtained". Even if, completely unsolicited, a juror bursts into a newspaper office and says "Something quite terrible has happened and I want to tell you about it, because it is a scandal", does the amendment almost make it an offence for the journalist not to plug his ears? Once he has listened to or obtained the story, is he committing contempt in terms of the amendment? What about the unsolicited information?

Mr. Gardner: Whether it is unsolicited or solicited information, unless it is done in a proper way, with proper safeguards, it inevitably tends to imperil the finality of the verdict. That is why, in our strong view, it would be wrong for that kind of information to be published. It could do infinite harm. Indeed, it could virtually be the basis of a new trial, which would be highly undesirable.
I was saying that I thought that the fear of the Criminal Bar Association that disclosures could undermine the jury system was wellfounded. There is a large body of opinion at the criminal Bar taking such a view, and it is held by members of the public. It is also a fear that is shared by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane. I was allowed by the Lord Chief Justice to consult him about the amendment, and about clause 9 in particular. He was good enough to give me his authority to repeat to this House his reaction to any change in the law relating to the disclosure of jury deliberations. I quote his words with great care. He said:
I regard any loosening of the strict rules about no disclosure of a jury's deliberations as anathema. The prospect of anyone, be he solicitor, press reporter or professor of law, being able, with or without the Attorney-General's permission, to go to a member of the jury and to ask for his recollection of the jury's deliberations and then to publish that recollection, even though there is no mention of the case or the name of the juror, seems to me an incredible idea. The dangers are obvious. The value is hard to detect.
Those are the words of the Lord Chief Justice, and I hope that I have quoted them exactly.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Having regard to what the Lord Chief Justice had said, and bearing those views in mind, would it not be better to adopt the course that we sought to adopt in Committee and expunge that part of clause 9 altogether, hook, line and sinker?

Mr. Gardiner: That is a view that I want to deal with next, because it is one that had to be considered and was considered very carefully by the Criminal Bar Association.
The Criminal Bar Association was divided on the second question: if disclosures are allowed, under what conditions should it be and with what restrictions should that licence be hedged? It is clear from the words of the Lord Chief Justice that he would in no circumstances whatever be prepared to allow disclosure. As I have said, the association was divided. Some, like the Lord Chief Justice, said that in no circumstances did they want any disclosure. Others took the view that the right to approach members of the jury after verdict or disagreement must be limited to genuine research, and then—this is the heart of the amendment—only provided that the Attorney-General gave his consent to such an approach.
No doubt an unrestricted right to interrogate after disagreement would be a tempting opportunity to an interested party to discover, by an interview with a member of the jury, which witnesses, for example, had not impressed and which witnesses had been stars in the

witness box, so that on a retrial other witnesses could be called who would be more effective. The conduct of the new trial might be governed by such findings.
Such abuse could bring the whole trial by jury system into danger of collapse. Many people believe that discovery in the interests of research should be allowed. However, if it is, it is clear that the ability to approach a member of the jury must be subject to severe and careful restrictions of the kind suggested by the amendment. There should be no approach to a member of a jury unless the Attorney-General is prepared to give consent. The amendment represents that view and I venture to think that that view will attract the support of hon. Members from all parties.
8.15 pm
I should like to think that that view has the sympathy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I hope that he will accept that the amendment was tabled as a responsible attempt to reflect the great anxiety felt by those who support it. With respect, it will not do to tell the House that there may be some sense in the amendment but that the Government will stick to the clause as drafted. The clause contains seeds that may ultimately do away with our jury system. Therefore, I beg him to take time to reflect and to accept the amendment as drafted or to suggest some way in which we could avoid what many of us believe to be the perils of clause 9.
Unhappily, I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee. However, in Committee my right hon. and learned Friend said:
I do not accept the proposition that no research is permissible … I do not believe that benevolent, genuine researchers, designed to give an approach to the jury system … will do any damage to the jury system."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 May 1981; c. 193–195.]
I hope that he is right. He also said that he was not "frightened of investigation". As a rule, most of us are not.
However, I earnestly submit that unrestricted, indiscriminate and mischevious interrogation of members of the jury, after verdict or disagreement, could be the first irretraceable and fatal step towards the ultimate abolition of the jury system. That prospect frightens me just as I hope that it will frighten Members as well as many members of the public.
I should like to think that our citizens rely on Parliament to protect their rights. One of their most valuable rights is the right to be tried by their fellow countrymen in cases where their reputations or freedoms are at stake. It is the risk that this right may be undermined or indeed destroyed that causes those who support this amendment to ask the Attorney-General, to urge him, to accept this amendment and to hope that the House as a whole will see the benefit that it would bring to the law.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I agree with everything that the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said in support of his amendment. It is for that very reason that we contend that his amendment does not go far enough, especially bearing in mind what the Lord Chief Justice had to say. One cannot venture to imagine stronger language than that used by the Lord Chief Justice in the quotation read to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is plain that insofar as clause 9 deals with interviews with jurors after a trial has finished it should be rejected root and branch. If what I have to say is rejected by the


Government tonight we shall support the amendment in the Lobby, but hope that even at this late stage we can reap some concession from the Attorney-General.
The Bill has some good things in it, and we welcomed the concessions made by the Government in Committee. We thought, in good faith, that there would be more concessions on Report, but it seems that we are to be disappointed. Having said that the Bill contains some good things, I say without hesitation that the clause is mischievous, insidious, and in many respects the most far-reaching clause in the whole Bill. That is basically why I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and say that his amendment does not go far enough.
I go one stage further and say that if the amendment is carried—and we shall support it in the Lobby if that is the only course left open to us—it will be the thin end of the wedge for the jury system. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when, echoing the views of the Criminal Bar Association and the Senate of the Inns of Court, he says that this could be the end of the jury system.
The House is debating the jury system. Although from time to time the system is attacked from certain quarters—quarters, incidentally, from whence one would least expect it to be attacked—the fact remains that with all its faults—and no system is perfect—the jury system is the linchpin of our system for the administration of justice. It is a uniquely British institution. Nothing of its kind exists outside the frontiers of this country. I have not the slightest doubt that it is the best system yet devised. We do not know why the jury system works, and to an extent we do not know how it works, but work it does, even if many people think in mysterious ways. I use "mysterious" in its original sense.
We do not even know why there are 12 members of a jury, although many romantic explanations have been proffered for the number 12—the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 patriarchs, the 12 officers of Solomon recorded in the Book of Kings and, of course, the 12 apostles. So there is a mystery surrounding juries, how they are made up and how they go about their vital business.
Apart from any question of harassing and troubling jurors after the trial is completed, I do not believe for one moment that what transpires in a jury room is conducive to research or examination thereafter. The Attorney-General put his finger on one reason why when he said during the previous debate that when he read the accounts of two jurors of what happened in the same trial he could not believe that they were talking about the same matter. That is one of the nonsenses of clause 9.
As the Lord-Chief Justice said, it does not matter how learned and experienced is the researcher who seeks to go behind the closed doors of the jury room, because what has transpired is the culmination and synthesis of what 12 good and true men and ladies have been debating either for a long or a short time. It is not just that. It is a distillation of what has fallen from the trial judge both during the trial and later in his directions to the jury. It is a strange potion, an admixture that cannot be found in any meeting of any other group in the world. It is unique.
Lord Devlin may have advanced another reason why the jury system is not conducive to research and examination when he said in the course of his Hamlyn lecture some years ago, that
the origin of the jury's verdict explains a unique feature of it that is still of the first importance. Judges give their reasons, either so as to satisfy the parties or because they themselves want to

justify their judgments. Even arbitrators detail their findings of fact. The jury just says yes or no. Indeed, it is not allowed to expand upon that and its reasons may not be inquired into. It is the oracle deprived of the right of being ambiguous. The jury was in its origin as oracular as the ordeal: neither was conceived in reason: the verdict, no more than the result of the ordeal, was open to rational criticism. This immunity has been largely retained and is still an essential characteristic to the system.
I believe that Lord Devlin was coming near to the point of the difficulty of seeking to look behind closed doors and inquire into the minds of the 12 jurors. There are as many men as there are opinions. If one interviewed each of the members of a jury, one would find that every one had a differing account. There would be not two different versions, as in the New Statesman case, but 12.
What is the purpose of putting at risk a system that has lasted for hundreds of years? It has lasted since 1295, when trial by ordeal was abolished by Pope Innocent III. The jury system as we know it began, almost by accident, and slowly evolved and developed thereafter into the system that we know today.
8.30 pm
I shall put it in a different way and change the burden of the argument that I have been adducing so far. Already juries have had to bear the burden of sitting—that is to say, taking part in a case—for long periods of time. They have had to endure bad working conditions in a court, and often long delays and personal inconvenience. They put up with all that because, as members of the public, they realise the overriding importance of their participation in the administration of justice. In our view, it is intolerable that they should, as proposed in the amendment, bear the additional burden of being subjected to cross-examination after they have delivered their verdict. There must be finality. I understood the Attorney-General to accept that in the short debate on the previous amendment. One matter that is of crucial, cardinal importance is that there must be an end. That end comes with a verdict, and that should be the finality.
I am sorry to have to say, but I believe that it is true, that this is part of a deliberate assault on the jury system. We saw that in the Supreme Court Bill. It has not been witnessed since 1295, when trial by ordeal was abolished. Lord Devlin foresaw what might happen in 1965, when he wrote about the slow unfolding of a doctrine that might blossom into what, to the defenders of trial by jury, would be a noxious flower.
Blackstone, in one of his celebrated commentaries, also foresaw what would happen when, either directly or as a consequence of proposals, trial by jury was slowly eroded.
He said:
Inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposed to the spirit of our constitution: and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread to the utter demise of Juries.
That is why I support the arguments that have been advanced and say what the Government would describe as trifling and unimportant is an assault upon the jury system which, because of its effect on individual jurors, will put our system in peril.
Jury members bear a heavy responsibility, and we all owe them a great debt of gratitude. It is intolerable for a juror in the course of his deliberations to be aware that, when a verdict is given and the judge has passed sentence, he may be asked questions about how he or his fellow jurors reached the decision and the real nature of the decision. No juror should be asked to bear that burden.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Even worse, there could not be a retrial, as evidence from the previous trial would be available to the new jurors.

Mr. Thomas: We dealt with it when the hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber, but I shall come to the question of retrial, which is an important matter in the argument.
I hope that I shall not detain the House for too long, but I, too, feel extremely strongly about the matter, which is a major constitutional issue, so I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little time in developing my argument.
Again I refer to the Hamlyn lectures. Lord Devlin said:
What goes on in the jury room is not only to be subject to no interference but it is also to be kept secret. It is doubtful whether there is any formal obligation upon a juror not to disclose what takes place in a jury room and it says a good deal for the sense of responsibility of the average juror that it never seems to have been necessary to decide the point. In a sensational case the public, or at least the press, would give a great deal to learn something that went on in the jury room but except in one or two rare cases there has never been any public discission on it …
The lack of any formal obligation to secrecy is a vestige of the embryonic jury.
Lord Devlin went on to talk about the system. He referred to a case of Armstrong in 1922, where
the writer of a newspaper article claimed to report what had been said to him about the evidence after the trial was over by a member of the jury. This was brought to the attention of the court which was hearing the appeal in the case, and Lord Chief Justice Hewart described it as 'improper, deplorable and dangerous;' he said that every juryman ought to observe the obligation of secrecy imposed by the oath of the grand juror. It so happened about the same time a case was heard in the civil Court of Appeal in which one of the rules about juries was discussed and observations were made about the Armstrong case. Lord Justice Bankes said: 'It has also been generally accepted by the public as a rule of conduct that what passes in the jury room during discussion by the jury about what their verdict should be ought to be treated as private and confidential, I may say that I saw the other day with astonishment and disgust the publication in a newspaper of a statement by the foreman of the jury in an important criminal trial as to what took place in the jury room after the jury had retired.
That was a case in which the foreman revealed that the defendant had previous convictions.
Lord Devlin added:
'I do not think it is necessary to express any opinion as to whether such a publication amounts to a contempt of court, but I feel confident that anyone who read that statement will realise the importance of maintaining the rule."'
Lord Devlin then said, finally, that when the foreman of the jury has given the verdict,
the clerk of the court says: 'And that is the verdict of you all'; and thereafter if no juryman dissents the jury is discharged and it is finis rerum. The court will not listen to any juryman who has second thoughts or allow any of them to assert thereafter that he was not a consenting party to the verdict. How otherwise could there be finality?
That points to the major difficulties that confront the Government in clause 9. I sought to deal in Committee with some of the difficulties and practical problems that will arise. One that arose a moment ago concerns retrial. There are also the difficulties that will arise following a majority verdict or a disagreement that leads to inquiries about those who were good witnesses and those who were bad, together with the danger, if it could be ascertained, about which of their number was the most keen for a conviction.
What about the far-reaching difficulties that would stem from the discovery that some irregularity had occurred in

the jury room? It is not far-fetched to envisage a situation in which a juror could be bribed to concoct some such irregularity where none existed.
I believe that the clause will not only diminish the confidence of the public in the system, but that in a very real sense it will put at risk the finality of the verdict itself. I should like to quote Lord Hewart who in the course of his judgment in the Armstrong case said:
If one juryman might communicate with the public on the evidence of the verdict, so might his colleagues also. If they all took this dangerous course, differences of individual opinion might be made manifest which at the least could not fail to diminish the confidence that the public has rightly in the general propriety of criminal verdicts".
I could quote extensively from the case of the Queen v Thompson in 1962, but, in view of the time, I shall not burden the House with those extracts.
I return to the remarks of Lord Devlin, who said:
Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives. To, many of us the boundaries between Whitehall and Westminster are uncertain and confused. We are anxious that government should be strong and yet fearful lest the gathering momentum of executive power crush all else in our State. We look for some landmark that we may say that so long as it stands, we are safe; and if it is threatened, we must resist. It is there, this beacon that seven centuries have tended".
We interfere with that at our peril.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I am glad that this debate is not to become, as some in the corridors have whispered should be the case, the exclusive preserve of distinguished luminaries of the Bar. We are discussing the jury system, which is, after all, the apotheosis of the common man. Some hon. Members, who are lawyers only of the barrack room type, should also contribute to the discussion.
I share the anxiety of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) whose view has been supported. I wish to add only one point. Over the years the qualifications for service on a jury have been diminished. The grand jury has gone. The property qualification for service on a jury has gone.
It would be easy for all of us, from our own personal experience and from the experience of friends who sit on modern juries, to form the view that decisions are reached sometimes by people who are illiterate, sometimes by people who have not understood the arguments, and sometimes by people who themselves are members of the criminal class.
8.45 pm
Yet I accept, despite all those sources of anxiety and lack of confidence, that the jury system works for the reasons that others wiser than I have advanced tonight. It works because it is final, because it is accepted, and because, surprisingly often, it produces the right result.
Today, more than ever in the past, if we put the jury men and women in the witness box, we shall find that they are less articulate, less experienced and less sophisticated than their predecessors. The stories that will emerge, even if they are stories retailed by professors, will inevitably undermine the confidence in the system which has worked for so many centuries.
I told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde that I would support him in the Lobby, and I said as much to the Whips. I hope that it will not be necessary to put the Government on the defensive in this matter, because I greatly hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to say something in his reply that will remove the need for us to divide.
I am certain that those of us who are not leading lawyers will feel, just as our professional friends and colleagues in the House clearly feel, that the jury system would not survive the kind of spotlight that is inherent in the clause as drafted. I add my voice to those better qualified advocates in urging that the modification in the amendment be accepted, or at least not rejected, by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Donald Dewar: This evening we have heard splendid oratory and fine sentiments. I get the impression that the House is in favour of the jury system. I should express my own interest, in the sense that I am a solicitor in Scotland, and have on many occasions appeared before juries in that country. I have also been the recipient of publication of information from jury rooms on many occasions, because there are few jury trials, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland will know, where those connected with it do not know the voting in the jury room shortly after the verdict is reached. That may be shocking, but it is true. I hasten to say that it is only the numbers that one knows, but technically I suppose that that would be a publication of matter that would be caught by clause 9.
There is a tendency in all omnibus law reform Bills—I use the word "omnibus" in the sense that they apply to both Scotland and England—to forget that there are separate traditions north and south of the border. Although I admire what my hon and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) said about 12 good men and true, in Scottish criminal trials it is 15 men, and there is nothing necessarily sacred about the round dozen. As far as I know, the 15 are as good or as bad, as efficient or as inefficient, in legal terms, in Scotland as they are in England.
I defend the concept and institution of the jury. It is a good way to decide matters in a criminal court. I am not entirely starry-eyed. Indeed, I might be cynical enough to say, as someone connected with defence work, that the jury always gives one a fighting chance. Perhaps that argument would not appeal to the public. It is a time-honoured system and there is no way in which I want to see it attacked, endangered or replaced. I stand alongside those who defend the jury system.
I am not sure that clause 9 represents quite such a direct and immediate threat as some of my colleagues have suggested. We have had jury service for many centuries. The fact that on occasions there have been revelations about what did or did not happen in specific trials has not brought the whole system crashing down like a house of cards. I agree that protection is of paramount importance. It is vital that those who do jury service are reasonably sure that what they say in the sanctity of the jury room in the private consultations that take place will remain private and not become public knowledge.
I agree with those who have said from the Opposition Front Bench that we would prefer amendment No. 6,

which would remove subsection (2). That would be sensible. It would leave the position in the clear and simplistic sense that any publication was a contempt.
Contempt may be technical, and prosecutions may not be mounted. Under subsection (4), in England, although not in Scotland, the consent of the Attorney-General is required before proceedings are instituted. In many technical cases no one would bother to proceed, even in Scotland, and the matter would die the death. There is virtue and simplicity in this case. There is virtue in editors knowing exactly where they stand. Publication of details of what happened in the jury room should be contempt, and publication would then be at peril. People would know that they were in peril if they proceeded to go to press or to publish in whatever way was open to them.
I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the general arguments about amendment No. 14, although I prefer the Opposition amendment. We are now on Report, and unless we find some way to move a manuscript amendment we are stuck with the form of words in the amendment. That will not do for Scotland. One of the key sections in the amendment is that
the consent of the Attorney General to the publication has been obtained before any such particulars are solicited.

Mr. Edward Gardner: My understanding is that if the amendment is carried tonight that will allow those in another place to look at it again. However, if no amendment is carried there will be no such opportunity.

Mr. Dewar: I understand that point. Perhaps I have not thought through my argument sufficiently. I suppose that it would be possible to put the matter right in another place. If the amendment finds favour, my brief remarks might be a hint to those in another place. As it stands, the consent of the Attorney-General is an integral part of the argument. It is an important plank on which the argument is based. It would be a strange anomaly if proceedings in Scotland required the consent of the Attorney-General for England, there being no such animal north of the border.
The matter could be put right simply by including some reference to the Scottish Law Officers and their consent. However, that would create an anomaly because subsection (4), which stands regardless of whether any amendment is successful, specifically rules out the involvement of the Law Officers in any proceedings for contempt under clause 9.
It would be rather strange if we were to accept the Scottish Law Officers' involvement, which would be implicit if we were to accept amendment No. 14, when we have specifically excluded it in subsection (4). This may sound a pettifogging argument but it is of importance. There will have to be changes to accommodate the fact that this is United Kingdom legislation.
In view of the attitude that we have properly taken, that we do not need in subsection (4) to have the Law Officers' consent in Scotland before any proceedings are instituted, it would seem rather inappropriate to incorporate the Law Officers in amendment No. 14 if the amendment were to find favour. That is a subsidiary argument but it buttresses my general conviction that amendment No. 6 is preferable to amendment No. 14, and I shall vote accordingly.

Mr. Budgen: The House should be extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) for introducing the amendment. It is the strange feature, and in some instances the weakness, of the


Tory Party that by loyalty it often supports changes of a dubious constitutional nature when they are advocated by Governments that it supports. We know perfectly well on occasions when we come to support retrospective legislation, or allow it to go through on the nod, that we would be screaming blue murder if a Labour Government were to produce such legislation. I suspect that if the proposal before us had been brought forward by a Labour Attorney-General, the Conservative Benches would be well packed and noisy.
It was well said by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) that this is an important discussion about the nature of the jury system. I am grateful for those who have spoken, as it were, for the man in the street and have said "I am no lawyer and I have no professional axe to grind, but I wish to support the jury system in its present form because I believe that it is a vital part of our constitution." Perhaps my view is distorted as I am a lawyer. However, I speak not as a lawyer but as one who cares very much about the support of our existing constitutional practices.
The Tory Party should not be interfering with the important parts of the constitution without the strongest criticism being exerted on any change and without the certainty that there is an overwhelming force throughout the country, as manifested by all sections of the community, that the existing constitutional position is unsupportable and must be changed in exactly the way that is proposed.
This is a change in the fundamental nature of the jury. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, as was certainly the case, that the decision in the New Statesman case was unexpected. Of course it was unexpected. It may be that there was a minority within the legal profession which anticipated it but the generality of us understood the law to be as expressed by Lord Devlin in the passages that the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery read out. It was a shock to us that the minority view prevailed in the New Statesman case. My argument is that we should return to the position that most of us believe to be right before that case.
Let us consider the most important sentence in the judgment in the New Statesman case. It reads as follows:
provided that what is done does not diminish the finality of the verdict.
There are many other qualities about the verdict other than its finality. There is, for example, the value of the verdict. The principal value of the verdict is that it has no reasons attached to it. Many hon. Gentlemen have dealt with that point from the point of view of the jury. I shall deal with it for a moment from the other points of view, firstly from the point of view of the accused.
If an accused man at present is acquitted, there is no question of any tiresome researcher coming along and showing for the sake of argument that he was acquitted because three chaps on the jury happened to believe that all police evidence is bent, that those people therefore wore down the jury over a long period and, eventually and reluctantly, the jury accepted that prejudiced view. There is no reason attached to the verdict of not guilty. Thus, no distinction is to be drawn by the public as a whole between one verdict of not guilty and another.
9 pm
If reasons are given as a result of some tiresome researcher having interviewed at length all the members of the jury, distinctions may be drawn. The accused may be known in the street as Fred Bloggs, the bloke who was acquitted of rape because a number of men on the jury did not like women. This is a serious matter because there would be no question of the finality of the verdict being in any way overturned, but the value of the verdict, most of all for the accused person, would have been much diminished by the activities of the researchers.
There is no analogy whatever between the role and verdict of the jury and that of the judge. The judge is trained to give reasons in an analytical and dispassionate way. The jury, which plainly represents the passions, idiosyncracies and irrationalities of all of us, has no such training. Judges must give reasons, for if no reasons are given, there can be no proper appeals procedure. That does not apply to the jury system. The process of allowing research damages it.
Secondly, I should like to consider the matter from the point of view of the public as a whole. Perhaps I shall gain a little support from Opposition Benches. I have argued and I shall continue to argue that it would be wise if there were a test of allegiance which applied to the 2 million people from the New Commonwealth and the ethnic minority. One of the reasons why I argue that is that I believe that there may be some evidence that on occasions members of the black community are influenced by their colour in the decisions which they make when sitting on juries.
I should not want that view to be investigated by any tiresome researcher. Whatever my views about the desirability of a test of allegiance, I believe that the existence and integrity of the jury system are far more important. If we start having a jury system which could be investigated by researchers, my view might be investigated. If it were investigated, that would undermine the whole jury system as well as damage the cohesion of our society.
The whole system of allowing any research is dangerous. Therefore, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend's amendment goes too far. It admits of the possibility of research and also of disclosure. If there is to be any attack on the integrity on the jury system, there should be specific legislation for it. I do not believe that, if there is to be any disclosure, that disclosure should be allowed by the Attorney-General. If disclosure were allowed in that way, it would inevitably bring the Attorney-General into the forefront of the political battle.
The Attorney-General has a delicate and very important role, to be not a party politician but a lawyer. He should have a quasi-judicial role and be above the vigour and vulgarity of party politics. If he were in a position to give permission for disclosure of the secrets of the jury room, he might imperil his very important independent position. Members of the Tory Party who, above all, are pledged to consider the integrity of the great pillars of the constitution should think very carefully before deciding to muck around with the jury system. We were not elected to do that. We should not do it by a by-blow, simply because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde has alerted us to this most unfortunate proposal. This is not the kind of legislation that the Tory Party should be bringing in on an ill-attended night.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Some of the comments in the debate have been startling. For example, I did not think that any lawyer would require an exposition by jurors to decide who was the best person to put into the witness box. I thought that lawyers were employed to make that decision themselves.
There has been some robust defence of the jury system, which I share. Indeed, some Opposition Members were greatly concerned when jury vetting was disclosed by the Crown and the same information was not made available to the defence. I do not recall those making such robust claims for the independence of the jury system tonight expressing the same vigorous concern about jury vetting, which we regarded as interference by the Crown in the ability of a free jury of 12 peers of the accused to make an assessment of the case.
Hon. Members who have stressed the importance of the jury system have my support, of course, but we should consider exactly what the provision does. When the New Statesman case was being considered and it appeared that the New Statesman would be prosecuted, I made the plea that there should be legislation. It should not be a matter for the courts and for small circulation serious journals to prejudice their very existence by going through expensive cases to decide the law.
If, after proper legal advice has been taken, there is still doubt, it chould be clarified by Parliament and not by expensive decisions. Having heard the arguments in the earlier debates, however, I wonder how anybody can get any clear legal advice from lawyers.
In the present debate, I admit, there has been unanimity among the lawyers that the clause will not be helpful. That is one reason why legislation should never be left to lawyers. In earlier debates, however, lawyers have expressed completely opposite views with absolute certainty and conviction. No doubt that is one reason why so many of them are gainfully and indeed lucratively employed. It is importanc that Parliament should legislate to clarify the position.
The amendment provides:
This section does not apply where…the publication does not identify the particular proceedings in which the deliberations of the jury took place or the names of particular jurors, and does not enable such matters to be identified".
Therefore, the claim that specific cases would be brought out into the public argument, and that there would be a case for a retrial, or that on retrial particular aspects of a case would be put forward to give lawyers an advantage so that they could argue the case in a certain way, simply does not apply.
As I understand the clause, it would be sufficient if any indication were given of any particular juror and any particular trial on which a comment was made. Those matters cannot be justified, and rightly so, because it is important that we understand that criticisms can be advanced about jurors being badgered and selling stories to newspapers, and we do not want that.
But there is another side to the matter. There should be room for serious comment on past cases. If the clause is rejected, that room for comment is completely ended. The jury system has existed for several hundred years and, as has been said, it is robust. It has even survived the abolition of the property qualification. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) seemed to regard that abolition as a blow to the standing of jurors. If it can withstand with fortitude all these changes, it must be a robust system, and

that very robustness should enable it to withstand some comment. It is important for the mass of people to understand the general but not the specific nature of juries in action.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Would my hon. Friend agree that democracy has also lasted for centuries but that it is a fragile flower which has to be constantly and carefully tended?

Mr. Cryer: We all have to defend democracy. At the same time, we have to remember that democracy is being developed. There are many aspects to democracy. I shall not be tempted down that road because it is a side issue, but it is worth noting that democratic development has been taking place in the twentieth century. We have to nurture democracy. It can also be strengthened in various ways. I should have thought that subsection (2)—which amendment No. 6 seeks to delete—would not harm the jury system. If it did, I would not argue for its retention.
I support the jury system and want it retained. I argue against any attempt to erode the jury system. But in the cause of better understanding within our democratic society, comment of the nature permitted by subsection (2) would be helpful and not injurious. The clause in no way allows the identification of individuals connected with the case. It allows only general comment, based on information which has been received for the purposes of such general publication.
As clause 9 sets out a number of limitations on the position of jurors, quite correctly, because of the way in which the position of a juror could be prejudiced, I suggest to the Attorney-General that he might consider the position, with the possibility of that same pressure being removed from witnesses and defendants by extending the categories set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 9. There is an argument that cheque book journalism has been rampant in one or two cases recently, in particular in the Yorkshire Ripper trial.
Indeed, the New Statesman article, on which the clause is based, contained a defence of the robustness of the jury system, in that the jury were able to recognise the inbuilt prejudices of a person who had entered into a financial contract with a newspaper. In this instance, I think that it was the Sunday Telegraph.
Therefore, there is a connection. I tabled an amendment that has not been selected. I do not criticise that decision, because on second sight I recognise that it was inadequately worded. However, it might be worth considering whether this type of clause can be used to ensure that witnesses are not placed in a position where they might seek to protract a trial or exaggerate their status to obtain financial gain.
9.15 pm
As a whole, clause 9 is beneficial. It clarifies the position and enables publications to gain greater certainty in the law, subject to the enormous pitfall and hazard of interpretation by lawyers. Judged by tonight's proceedings, that will always be a difficulty. It also enables research and publication to take place, whilst protecting the jury's secret deliberations. As has been pointed out, the secrecy of the jury must be safeguarded.
We must try to obtain a balance. On the one hand it is desirable to produce a limited amount of general information and on the other it is necessary to protect


jurors from being badgered in the way that has been described. On that basis, clause 9 is a reasonable compromise and will certainly have my support.

Mr. Lawrence: I have listened to some outstanding speeches tonight. But the nearest that I came to thinking that the Government might give in to those of us who are behind the amendment was when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). When my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has to rely on the sole support of the hon. Gentleman, he is in a bad way.
The hon. Member for Keighley has chosen a bad night on which to pursue his usual vendetta against lawyers. The legal mafia in this House is engaged not in protecting its own interests with one voice, but in protecting the interests of the people. Tonight's activities could not underline more the futility of the hon. Gentleman's claim—which he continually makes—that hon. Members should not engage in outside activities. It has been practising lawyers who have identified the evil represented in the clause. They have advanced the arguments for its defeat. Great credit is due to the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) and to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). In Committee they advanced strong arguments for the clause's omission.
With his usual modesty, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) made a speech that relied on the arguments of the Criminal Bar Association and the Senate of the Bar and Inns of Court. However, he has the wisdom, experience and distinction at the Bar to advance the cause from his experience. If there is one thing that practising members of the Bar can do here tonight it is to put the weight of their experience at the Bar behind the need to support the jury system.
I am less modest, less successful and less eminent than my hon. and learned Friend, yet I think it important—even for me—to say that the Government are lighting a fuse, none the less destructive for being a slow burning one, which could easily destroy the jury system as we know it. Faced with the need to make a change as the result of the New Statesman case or, as the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery said, to plug the gap, the Government have made the wrong charge and plugged the wrong gap. They have refused immunity for publication and extended it to researchers.
In the opinion not just of the Criminal Bar Association, the Senate of the Bar and Inns of Courts, and the judges, most importantly represented by the view, expressed through my hon. and learned Friend today, of the Lord Chief Justice, but in the view of most of us who practise before juries this is a very dangerous measure. The jury system, for all its age and veneration, is quite a delicate plant. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who made one of those important contributions that the layman should make in a debate like this, that the jury system is not strong enough to withstand the assaults that may be made upon it if this clause is allowed to continue in its present form.
I give two reasons why, in my experience, I believe that is so. The first is that from time to time jurymen are threatened. As I understand it, it is because jurymen were so often threatened that the pressure came for the introduction of majority verdicts. There are ways in

serious criminal trials of getting to a jury. We must do nothing that makes the prospective juryman fear serving on a British jury. If the word were to get around that anybody may approach a jury as long as it is not for the purpose of publication it would not be long before people who ought to be sitting on our juries were claiming exemptions because they were frightened.
All of us who practise at the criminal Bar know from our own experience and knowledge that there have been juries who have come to verdicts because they were frightened. I give one example, where a juryman on a bus who happened to meet a solicitor in a very important murder trial told him that the reason the jury had come to the verdict acquitting the man of murder in the face of the strongest evidence was that the jury were terrified. If that can happen under the existing system with that possibility fortunately narrowed by the care and vigilance of the police and the supervision of the court, we must be very hesitant to open up the doors because we may find that the doors become flood-gates into which fear flows for future juries in this country.
The second reason why we must be careful, in my experience, is to do with the bona fide researcher. We heard in Committee that it was the mala fide researcher that we must fear, the one who was out only to undermine the jury system by malice. It is not. It is the bona fide researcher we must also fear because the bona fide researcher will not research because he wants to show how the strong lamp of freedom still glows in our society. That is not what happens. The jury system is full of warts. It is full of faults. It is full of matter for criticism. One can have a field day digging around for the thoughts and actions and views of jurymen.
What is the cumulative result of all that? It is to pile up the relentless, remorseless criticism that the bona fide researchers will build up over the years until it will be possible to turn to the British public and say "Look what you have got judging your cases". We have seen how that can pervert the system of justice if we look at some of the States of America. I can only advise some of my colleagues, when they are next in the United States, to speak to judges and practitioners about how the jury system can be subverted by attacks upon it from whatever sources so that justice is not necessarily done. Principally they have the attack which says that they can challenge jurymen until they have the jury of their choice.
Once we can choose a jury we are three-quarters of the way to choosing the verdict. That is precisely what happens in many American courts and that is why American judges admire our system. It is of no use thinking that the bona fide researcher will benefit the jury system. If anyone asks what is the use of a system that is so maggoty that it cannot bear the light of examination, I make the remark made about the other pillar of our system, democracy. When Winston Churchill was asked what he thought of democracy, did he not say that it was the worst of all possible systems—until we examine the alternatives? That is what is wrong with the criticism of the jury system. It is impossible for us to devise a better system.
To let the judges make all the decisions would be a matter about which all practising lawyers and members of the public would disagree. We hear attacks upon lawyers and upon judges from Labour Members who accuse judges of being a class-ridden sector of society. What confidence would be reposed in judgments made in criminal cases


concerning the freedom of the individual by some Labour Members who are so quick to criticise the judges when it suits them to do so?

Mr. John Ryman: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman exaggerating the potential threat to the jury system? I sympathise with his general arguments against the clause and I am in favour of the amendment, but is not there a case, for example, in a long and complicated trial involving a commercial fraud for not having the jury system?

Mr. Lawrence: If I am exaggerating there can be no harm in showing an abundance of caution. It might be a good idea to take notice of it for it is not just my exaggeration. It is the exaggeration of Lord Devlin, who was extensively quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery. It is the exaggeration of the Lord Chief Justice and of the practising members of the Bar who make up the Criminal Bar Association and the Senate of the Bar and Inns of Court. If we are all exaggerating, I beseech the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) to realise that out of an abundance of caution we might be careful before we take this step. To find out too late that we were not exaggerating would be the worst thing that could happen.
The reason why judges are not acceptable as the sole judges of the liberty of the individual may have deep roots in the class system of our society. But it is not just that the lawyers feel confidence in the jury system. Accused persons feel confidence in the jury system. When they are convicted by a jury, they consider that they have less reason to complain; they feel safer in the hands of ordinary people.
It has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery that we do not know wherein lies the strength of the jury. We do know. It lies in the strength of ordinary people. Accused persons who are tried on matters which affect their liberty would rather trust the people. Would that more Members of Parliament trusted the people more often. Perhaps we would then have sounder laws.
The people who are accused of crime trust the jury system. If they trust the jury system, they accept the verdict. If they accept the verdict, there is a more peaceful conclusion even to the finding of guilt and the sentencing to imprisonment. A person will go to prison with fewer chips on his shoulder if he is convicted by a jury rather than by a judge. Many of us who practise in the courts know that there are judges who are individualistic or even eccentric.
For those reasons, the practitioner in our courts must be aware—whether it is slightly or greatly exaggerated—that there is more than a grain of truth in the fear that is too widely expressed that this measure lights a fuse which could, even if it does not certainly, demolish the jury system as we know it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) have proposed amendment No. 14. I think that it is a pretty poor amendment. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery, who has striven so strongly both in Committee and in the House. I would not let anyone near a jury, with the Attorney-General's permission or not. However, we live in a real world and that sometimes requires compromise. If my right hon. and learned Friend finds it impossible to accept the thesis that bona fide researchers should not be able to go automatically as of right to a jury,

perhaps he will consider that if he has the power to say yea or nay to a bona fide researcher that might meet our objections.
9.30 pm
In the spirit of compromise—a matter which is dear to the hon. Member for Keighley—I support and advance that amendment. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will look at it again, because we are concerned here with the sanctity of the jury system. We have been given the authority and the trust of the people to make sure, among the many other things that we have to do, that the sancticity of the jury system is maintained.

Mr. Christopher Price: I cannot remember an occasion when hon. Members, who express so much faith in an institution, have by their speeches shown how little faith they have in it and how unwilling they are to expose it to the normal winds to which institutions are exposed. We shall not get far in the debate if we have a competition about who believes in the jury system most. We all believe in the jury system for the complicated and different reasons that make up the good things about a jury. Why we do is not capable of analysis. I passionately believe in the jury system. It is one of the foundations of British democracy.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and a few people on the Leftish side of the Labour Party, I spent many years trying to prevent interference with the selection of juries and attempting to maintain the random selection of juries. In our own way, we believe in the jury system. It is stupid to say that because someone is for or against an amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), he believes more or less in the jury system.
I also agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), as I do not have much faith in academic legal researchers. Much trivial stuff is talked about them. I am not so scared about it as others appear to be, but I do not think that it is all that marvellous. Some lawyers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), would like to get rid of the jury system in some trials. The Supreme Court [Lords] Bill suggests that.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that on a vote taken in Committee the Government were defeated.

Mr. Price: My ignorance is due to my absence from this place. I cannot keep up. I am terribly pleased to hear that. At least there was an attempt by the Government to get rid of juries in that sort of case, and the proper democracy of a Standing Committee has wiped the proposal away. That is a first-class decision.
There are two sorts of lawyers. Some lawyers would like many cases decided by judges alone. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, there is widespread agreement in the Chamber that juries should decide cases where possible and judges should not. However, I am not persuaded that the amendment is right. I stick to my position in Committee. Clause 9 is about right. The Attorney-General has got it about right.
In an article in The Listener in February of this year, Geoffrey Robertson, a distinguished but still rather junior lawyer, stated:
The Thorpe trial makes its contribution to the Contempt Bill in the form of a brand-new crime of publishing jurors' accounts of their deliberations in identifiable cases. It may be desirable to


spare defendants acquitted in notorious trials the double jeopardy of jurors prepared to announce that their doubts, though reasonable, were not many. But there are cases—the Thorpe trial was one—where the public interest can well be served by an identifiable revelation. There, it will be remembered, Peter Besse11 was 'bought' by the Sunday Telegraph with an escalation clause in his contract which doubled his money on conviction. Demands to outlaw this practice were met with arguments that jurors would not be influenced by it—until the New Statesman interview with a juror demonstrated that a deal had, in fact, effectively discredited Bessell's testimony. That revelation served the public interest because the trial was identified. The moral of the story is, surely, to extend the law of contempt to punish newspapers which make pre-trial financial deals with witnesses, rather than those which expose the evils of such deals in the most effective way. This new crime requires at the very least a 'public interest' defence.
There is no public interest defence in the clause as it stands, and I am sorry about that. We could have done with it to cover such a case.
I support the clause as it is, not because I am against juries, but because I have more faith in them than those who put down the amendment. We do not need to be so solemn about jurors. After a recent long trial journalists and jurors relaxed together in the pub. Jurors that I have met there and on other occasions seem to be ordinary people, who take their job extremely seriously and do it with greater dedication than almost anything else in their lives. It is a tremendous experience for them.
For that reason, I believe that there should be some exposition, particularly in the press—I am not talking about research—of the broad shape and feel of being a juror, provided that there is no pressure on people to reveal their experience if they do not wish to and that there is no attempt to identity the case.
There is then the question of the journalist juror. Many of my journalist friends have at one time served on a jury. Their information about what it is like to be a juror involves no question of pressure or disclosure. It is within them. Their great desire is to write a column for the newspaper saying that they served on a jury and, without saying what the case was about, describe their experience. They might say that it was an exhilirating experience in which 12 strangers came together and took their duties tremendously seriously. That sort of exposition of what a jury is like can only strengthen the jury system and not weaken it.
I fear that the amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, whose reasons for tabling it I fully understand, would be harmful to that sort of journalism. People are often frightened of serving on a jury. They approach many hon. Members to ask how they can get out of serving on a jury. If there was more of that sort of journalism I have described, people would be less frightened of serving on a jury. I believe that clause 9 is about right.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman and I agreed on a number of matters in Committee. I accept fully the right of a journalist to write about his personal experiences as well as the experiences he might cover as a reporter. Is the hon. Gentleman not in danger of inviting the journalist to abuse his privilege, as a juror, of entering into private and confidential discussions and subsequently revealing them, claiming his right to do so as a journalist? I should have thought that

people could be scared off serving on a jury if it was known that a journalist, who was also a member of the jury, might reveal private deliberations to the public.

Mr. Price: At the end of the day, one has to trust the researcher, journalist or whoever one is dealing with. The literature already written about experience of serving on juries has on the whole strengthened rather than weakened the system of jurors. One cannot in the final resort stop people writing fiction about juries. They might write dramas or drama documentaries for television that get near to fact but are still officially fiction.
My broad view is that the amendment is over-solemn. There is no point in being frightened by abuse by journalists and researchers. Many of them may not get matters right, but the clause contains strong penalties if the juror is identified. To go as far as the amendment suggests would make jury service almost so solemn and ecclesiastical that people might be frightened off serving.
There is a genuine division in the House on this issue that does not seem to run exactly along party lines. My own Front Bench is inclined to support the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde. One or two of us would not be inclined to support him. There is a great division on the Government side. My inclination is not to support the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Attorney-General might find himself accompanying me into the Lobby.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I strongly support the amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). In every jury room in the Old Bailey there used to be a sign with the message, if I recall the wording correctly, "Her Majesty's judges wish to remind jurors of their solemn obligation not to divulge afterwards to anyone what passes during their deliberations in the jury room." I used to take that for granted, and, like a number of others, I used to wonder what legal authority there was for that solemn injunction from Her Majesty's judges.
Of one thing I was sure: that it was necessary, a matter of common sense and something that one took for granted as an important prop in the jury system that the proceedings and what happened in the jury room were secret. That attitude was held by everyone until the New Statesman case, when it appeared that the law did not support that general proposition.
9.45 pm
Elsewhere in the Old Bailey—on the ground floor in the old building—there is a tablet on the wall to the courage and fortitude of a certain jury. If I remember the inscription correctly, it says that the jury, which in 1611 tried William Penn for the offence, I think, of preaching sedition, refused to return a verdict of guilty. Indeed, it refused to return a verdict at all. Apparently, the judge had insisted on a verdict of guilty, and for their pains the jurors were imprisoned. They insisted on their verdict and never returned the verdict of "guilty" that the judge wanted.Those two facts run together: the one was testimony to the other. The one was necessary for the observance of the other.
The Government are making a fundamental mistake in retaining the wording of the clause as drafted. The average juryman derives his strength and protection from the very anonymity which the secrecy of proceedings in the jury room gives him. The very mystique of the jury room and


the functions of the juror in important trials are important factors in our jury system and in its excellence. Every juryman sitting in the jury room believes himself to be part of a separate institution, applying his mind without fear of favour to the question of the verdict which is appropriate, and is able to do so because—by virtue of what we thought until recently was the protection afforded him by the law—he was entitled to exercise his own judgment on the matters that he had witnessed in the court room.
In the course of the trial members of the jury have to enter into the lives of people who previously were strangers to them, consider their thoughts, feelings and actions, share perhaps something of the drama of those lives and of a particular incident or series of incidents that occurred, perhaps derive some interest and satisfaction out of what they are doing and in the end come to a judgment.
Those of us who have been in court and near jury rooms often hear great commotions. From the noise that one can hear some distance away, it appears that members of the jury sometimes almost come to blows in their deliberations. They are engaged in taking a kind of snapshot of a section of the life of the defendant they are trying.
It is important to us, to our system of law and order and to justice that they take that snapshot, make a decision, return their verdict, and then have done with it. It is the finality that follows the verdict that guarantees the independence of the system. If there were any possibility that the verdict could be questioned in the way that the clause provides, it would destroy not only the value of the system, but the protection that every jury man feels as an anonymous person doing a job on behalf of the public. That damage to the integrity of the system, which is inherent in its secrecy, must be prevented.

Dr. Glyn: I shall be brief. As in the case of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), it is a long time since I was called to the Bar. Tonight I speak purely as a layman.
The House, with one exception, has recognised the importance to Britain of the jury system. It has also recognised the importance of jurors feeling that they are protected. That importance is realised in the performance of the duty that those who serve on a jury take seriously. As the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) said, that system replaced an obnoxious system. Obviously, a jury system has imperfections, but any attack on that system will be a grave injustice. The country would not be pleased if it thought that we were in any way attacking either the system or the integrity of those who sit on the jury.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, the importance is the finality of the matter. Once a jury has decided, that is the end of it. There is no argument about what they decided, how they reasoned and whether colour or faith played any part. When called upon to choose whether to be tried by a jury, many elect that course. That is because they believe, rightly, that they will have a better trial.
I raised an important point with the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will pay attention to it. I refer to the question of retrials. If a retrial takes place there is a danger of some leakage of information that might affect the reasoning, the legality and the background of the second trial.
My right hon. and learned Friend is here not as a Conservative Member of Parliament, but as a Law Officer of the Crown to advise the House. When he replies I hope that he will take into account the views that have been expressed from both sides of the House on a matter of considerable importance. He would not be the first Attorney-General to stand up and say "I am a Law Officer of the Crown first, and my judgment must be reflected not in the political views of my party but in my position as legal adviser to the Government." I am sure that he will do that.
Many in Britain regard jury service as important. They have come to accept all its imperfections. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) not to bring the matter to a Division.

The Attorney-General: I start by referring briefly to Scotland. Amendment No. 14 would have to be amended if it were to apply to Scotland. Secondly, the New Stateman case is not binding. Thirdly, in Scotland a serious view of interference with jurors is taken throughout.
I regret very much one sentence in what was otherwise, if I may say so, a splendid speech by the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas), when he spoke about the Government mounting a deliberate attack on the jury system. I hope that on reflection he will regret saying that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyone who knows me and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will know that we have a tremendous belief in the jury system. To say that the Government are guilty of a deliberate attack is such nonsense that I intend to say no more about it.
Tonight I feel very lonely. It seems that I have two friends, the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I have no need to say that with friends like that—I shall not complete the sentence, because I am grateful for any support from wherever it may come.
The matter that we are discussing is one that the Lord Chancellor has considered with the greatest care. This is the Lord Chancellor's Bill. We are dealing with a matter that has caused him and me great anxiety. Happily, I am still a practising member of the Bar and a great deal of the work that I have done since I took silk has been in the criminal division.
I am conscious of the dangers of doing anything that might interfere with or diminish the jury system upon which we all rely. I am rather worried when I hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) talk about sowing the seeds of the end of the, jury system. The hon. and learned Member for Abertillery asked: "Why risk 12 versions of jury deliberations? There would be no finality." I do not understand that argument. If the clause as drafted prevents identification, either of the case or the juror, we shall not get 12 versions of jury deliberations that can be identified as coming from the 12 members of the same jury. It should not interfere with finality.
The clause seeks to go back to the position before the New Statesman case. That is all that it seeks. It does not permit jurors to be interfered with, it does not allow corrupt practices with jurors, it does not allow threats to jurors and it does not allow anything that would be likely to pevert the course of justice. None of the restrictions that


existed before the New Statesman case has in any way been diminished. Indeed, the amendments that I moved before the debate on amendment No. 14 began strengthened the restrictions. There can be no doubt that the existing law of contempt in respect of improper conduct of jurors is exactly what it was before the New Statesman case. It will remain exactly the same when the Bill is enacted.
What are we doing? I have to say that amendment No. 14 is a blunderbuss. It would make it a contempt for any juror to disclose anything at all of a jury's deliberations. It would make it a criminal offence for a solicitor to sit in a bus and to be told by a juror "Do you know what happened in the case that I have just heard?" Under the amendment that would amount to criminal contempt. It would introduce the concept of technical contempt. It would not matter if the disclosure did not identify the case or if disclosure were made on a purely social or domestic occasion. It would not matter if it were made to the wife or husband at the supper table. Some people may dine out for a month as jurors hearing a notorious case. However, to say a word over the sherry, over the dinner table, in the pub or in the cafe would, under the amendment, be criminal contempt.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Surely the reality is that the Attorney-General would never give his consent, which is required under the amendment, to cases as trivial as discussions over a glass of sherry and so on.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Contempt of Court Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mather.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Attorney-General: The argument is unattractive. It is being said that we are sorry that the drafting is sloppy, we are sorry that we are including in the amendment a number of people whom we do not wish to prosecute, but, although we have made them guilty or likely to be guilty of a criminal offence, we rely on the good sense of the Attorney-General to see that they are not prosecuted. Why not get the drafting right, so that those people are not covered at all?
The Bill excludes worries about jurors who will not identify the case or in any way lead to a lack of finality about it.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, if there were enough support for amendment No. 14 or amendment No. 6, it is likely that their Lordships would be able to consider the question of juries, because my right hon. and learned Friend amended the clause when it came down from the Upper House?

The Attorney-General: The clause, having been amended, can be reconsidered in another place. If that happens, it comes back here, and there is a ping-pong situation. There is no doubt that that can happen.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1968 was worried about the matter. It said in its tenth report that
service on a jury is to some people an interesting occasion, and clearly there is no objection to jurors' discussing their experiences in a general way without identifying cases; and in any event there will inevitably be minor disclosures of a kind which, though they ought not to be encouraged, few people would regard as deserving of punishment.
946-948
Amendment No. 6 is not so sweeping and has the advantage of being tremendously simple. It removes the exceptions that are now in the clause. Therefore, there can be no qualifications, no research and no publication. I know that that meets the objections of many people. As I said when moving my small amendment, there are three groups—those who follow and believe in the amendment No. 14 principle and that there should be some measure of strict control over research, those who believe firmly in the amendment No. 6 principle, and some who fall between the two stools. There is a strong feeling about that at the Bar and among people who are concerned with the matter.
Every time one considers the matter, one returns to ask what is the purpose of the clause. It is simply to return to pre-New Statesman days. What would have happened if the divisional court had found against Mr. Bruce Page and the New Statesman had said that it was contempt of court to publish the deliberations of the jury room and had not dealt with all the other matters that are extraneous to the purpose of the clause? Would these amendments to the Bill have been proposed? Through the clause I have sought to put us where we were before the divisional court made that odd decision.

Mr. Ryman: If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view, why was there no appeal in the New Statesman case?

The Attorney-General: It seemed to us that there were grounds for that view. There were precedents in the sense that there had been publication to an extent that was probably only properly known after the affidavit was sworn and the work had been done by the New Statesman. In those circumstances it seemed better that Parliament should have a chance to consider the matter rather than seek to overturn the decision. Usually, one likes to be reasonably confident of success before going to appeal.
There is another problem about amendment No. 14. I suppose that there must be someone to authorise this, but I do not welcome the choice of the Attorney-General. I am not keen on being either a kind of licensing authority or a kind of censorship authority. Inevitably, one would be one or other of those things, if not both, if the amendment were passed.
I maintain, as I said in Committee, that we should not fear genuine research into our jury system. I gave an example from the Legal Action Group bulletin of December 1979, which I believe should be compulsory reading for all pupils at the Bar. They could learn a great deal about how they should behave in criminal cases tried by juries.
In the end it must be for the Government, knowing the pressures that exist, and principally for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, whose Bill it is, to decide, and for the House to say whether it accepts that decision. On balance, I believe that we have got it right. Strong views have been expressed from all parts of the House and, if I may say so, from people who know what they are talking about. It may well be, therefore, that this will be looked at again. I cannot give any undertaking that there will be any change of mind, and I should not wish to be thought to have said that. I undertake, however, that today's debate will be very carefully read.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 126.

Division No. 223]
[10.08 pm


Alton, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Beith, A. J.
Leighton, Ronald


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
McCartney, Hugh


Best, Keith
McCrindle, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Budgen, Nick
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maynard, Miss Joan


Canavan, Dennis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Cook, Robin F.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Craigen, J. M.
Newens, Stanley


Crowther, J. S.
Penhaligon, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Dalyell, Tam
Robertson, George


Dixon, Donald
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Dormand, Jack
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Faulds, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Freud, Clement
Ryman, John


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Glyn, Dr Alan
Spriggs, Leslie


Golding, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Graham, Ted
Stevens, Martin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Strang, Gavin


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Tinn, James


Haynes, Frank
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Home Robertson, John
White, Frank R.


Hooley, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes;


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Mr. Edward Gardner.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Colvin, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cope, John


Bright, Graham
Cranborne, Viscount


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon
Dover, Denshore


Alick
Dunlop, John





Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neale, Gerrard


Eggar, Tim
Needham, Richard


Elliott, Sir William
Nelson, Anthony


Emery, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Newton, Tony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Percival, Sir Ian


Forman, Nigel
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Goodhew, Victor
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Rathbone, Tim


Gow, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Gower, Sir Raymond
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Gray, Hamish
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hannam, John
Sims, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Speed, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Spence, John


Heddle, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Henderson, Barry
Stanley, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Steen, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Knox, David
Tebbit, Norman


Lang, Ian
Thompson, Donald


Le Marchant, Spencer
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thornton, Malcolm


Lyell, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Waddington, David


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Waldegrave, Hon William


McQuarrie, Albert
Ward, John


Madel, David
Watson, John


Major, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marlow, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wheeler, John


Mates, Michael
Wickenden, Keith


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mills, Peter (West Devon)



Moate, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Monro, Hector
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Murphy, Christopher
Mr. Carol Mather


Myles, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made:No. 22, in page 3, line 30 at end insert

'by virtue of this section'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 13

OFFENCES OF CONTEMPT OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 25, leave out from 'fit' to 'impose' in line 26.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 27, leave out '£500, or both' and insert '£50'.

Mr. Morris: I shall be brief. I commend the two amendments, because the Home Secretary seeks to ensure that fewer people are sent to prison and in that climate it is offensive to find a provision for sending people to prison when a lesser penalty—even smaller than the financial penalty proposed—would seem sufficient.

The Attorney-General: The penalty provisions in clause 13 were carefully considered before the introduction of the Bill. I see no reason to depart from the maximum specified in subsection (2). We started with paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Phillimore report, where it was noted that magistrates' courts dealt with about 98 per cent. of all criminal cases in England and Wales, sometimes in difficult conditions in crowded courts. There have been incidents where disorderly conduct has brought proceedings to a standstill. For those who are minded to disrupt proceedings, the existing power to remove offenders from the court was not, in Phillimore's assessment, a sufficient deterrent. Moreover, it is difficult to reconcile the absence of realistic powers in England and Wales with the position in Scotland, where the lower courts have for long had powers to commit to custody and to fine those who disrupt business.
Against that background, the penalties of commital to custody for a specific period not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding £500 were arrived at on the following basis. We took the various assessments everywhere else and ended up with these figures. In my view, if we have anything less than that as a maximum there will not be a sufficient deterrent if there is a bad case of deliberate disruption of proceedings in a magistrates' court.

Mr. Morris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 9, line 10, after 'application', insert 'of this Act'.

No. 24, in page 9, line 10, leave out from 'Ireland' to 'to' in line 11 and insert 'references'.

No. 25, in page 9, line 12, leave out 'a reference' and insert 'references'.—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 22

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 10, line 22, after 'Sections', insert '7'.—[The Attorney-General.]

schedule 1

TIMES WHEN PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTIVE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 2

The Attorney-General: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 12, line 25, at end insert—
'10A. Criminal proceedings against a person which become active on the issue or grant of a warrant for his arrest cease to be active at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the warrant unless he has been arrested within that period, but become active again if he is subsequently arrested.'
The amendment implements an undertaking given in Committee to make provision to cover the type of case where a wanted man eludes capture or perhaps even disappears for a long period. The strict liability rule does not continue to apply indefinitely. This arose particularly in Committee and on Second Reading from the Lord Lucan case and the "Gaul" case. We have responded to what was said by introducing the amendment.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome the amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move amendment No 12, in page 12, line 40, leave out
'the case is set down'
and insert
'the case is included in a list of cases which shall be kept by the proper officer and available for public inspection of cases which it is anticipated will be heard within the ensuing period of three weeks'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall take amendment No. 13, in page 13, line 19, at end add—
'16. In paragraph 12, "the proper officer" means—

(a) in relation to an action in the Queen's Bench Division which is to be tried at the Royal Courts of Justice, the head clerk of the Crown Office;
(b) in relation to an action (in whatever Division) which is to be tried outside the Royal Courts of Justice, the district registrar for the district comprising the place of trial;
(c) in relation to an action in the Chancery Division which is to be tried at the Royal Courts of Justice, the cause clerk of the Chancery Registrars' Office;
(d) in relation to a cause or matter in the Family Division, which is to be tried at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Clerk of the Rules.'.

Mr. Archer: Since this is the first time during the stages of the Bill that this proposal has been debated, I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a moment or two longer than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) took in moving amendment No. 9. We have from time to time considered for the purposes of the strict liability rule when proceedings become active, but until now we have not turned our attention to the question of when civil proceedings become active at first instance.
We knew that if the test of setting down, which is the one adopted in the Bill, was adopted, it would be likely to restrict comment for an unduly long period before the hearing, but it was only after the Committee stage had been concluded that an informative and entertaining article in The Times by Miss Frances Gibb on 19 May set out some of the further problems of the press in this connection. She pointed out that it was very difficult to discover whether a particular case had been set down. It seems that she attempted to do so by taking a case which was known to be brought against Sotheby's and Christie's, but it was not known who were the plaintiffs.
It was necessary to discover in which division the case was being brought. They guessed that it was probably the Queen's Bench Division. Once the division was established, they were asked whether they had the date when the writ was issued, and they had not. They were asked whether they had the official name of the case, and they had not. It was then suggested that they should look in the general index, but, unfortunately, since cases there are listed alphabetically and they did not know the name of the plaintiff, that provided a problem. In the end, it was a very difficult problem indeed.
In a minority report from the Phillimore committee, Sir Robin Day—as he then was not—suggested that there might be a new sub judice list. It would be published, perhaps, one or two weeks before the trial, and when a case came into that list it would be active. We tried to stretch it a little. We have made it three weeks, but we would not die in the last ditch for that. It might be suggested, why not the warned list? Basically, we think on balance that that would be too long a period and, for those who have to search it, too long a list. We hope that the House will not spend a great deal of time discussing exactly what the period should be and that the Attorney-General will direct his mind to the principle of a solution.

The Attorney-General: The amendment started as part of the Phillimore recommendations. The first concern of the Phillimore committee, and one which I am sure the whole House will welcome, was to do away with the gagging writ, which has been abused so much over the past few years. The strict liability commencement point was decided to be well after the issue of the writ or other originating process. In choosing the date for setting down the starting point for a High Court action, the committee made several points which are to be found in paragraph 126. The committee first pointed out that setting down was the moment from which the sub judice rule in the House operated. As far as I know, there has been no difficulty about the application of that rule here.
Secondly, the committee considered the sort of period which is normal in the various divisions of the High Court. The figure it gave for the Queen's Bench Division is not very different from what it is now. The present position is that nearly one-third of actions are tried within six months of being set down, and a total of 80 per cent. are tried within 12 months. In the Chancery Division, things have improved a good deal since Phillimore's day. For all actions except long witness actions, the average period is three months; for long witness actions it is 13 months.
The committee had some doubts about those periods. In paragraph 127, it says that the date of setting down was supported by many of the press witnesses, none of whom had suggested a later date. It seems, therefore, that the Opposition are being plus royaliste que le roi in the amendment. Moreover, despite what it says about setting down, the Phillimore committee seems to envisage a period of up to six months before the trial is appropriate, which is of a very different order from the three weeks proposed in the amendments.
I do not think it has been realised that over 90 per cent. of actions started in the High Court never get to the setting-down stage because they are settled. The area of application of the rule has, therefore, been vastly diminished. In those circumstances, in my view we have got it about right, and the difficulties that would follow from either amendment could not easily be resolved.

Mr. Archer: Speaking for myself, I am not sure that I am happy about gagging the press for periods of up to 12 months. As for the press witnesses to the Phillimore committee, I am not convinced that they would be wholly representative of press opinion today to judge from correspondence received by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. But it is a matter of getting a balance, and as this is the first opportunity we have had to consider it we are not minded to press the amendment to a Division. I promise the Attorney-General that when the Bill he mentioned comes before the House the matter may be debated further.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 47, leave out 'the Record is closed' and insert
'the petition, summons or initial writ is served'.
I am conscious that some of my Scottish colleagues are breathing down my neck, and it behoves me to make short shrift of this amendment. It is worth airing, and it will give the Solicitor-General for Scotland a chance to show his paces.
The amendment caused some argument in Committee, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland and I had a short dialogue inserted into the middle of the lengthier proceedings conducted by our English colleagues. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill in terms of criminal proceedings and the start of the active period of contempt in criminal proceedings and civil proceedings seems to rely on the law of Scotland as recently modernised in judgments such as that of HMA v.Hall.
10. 30 pm
On the civil point—that is, the start of the active period of civil proceedings—I shall read briefly from Lord Emslie's judgment in that case:
In the case of the Civil Courts there is no difficulty in dividing the time at which proceedings can be said to commence, and that time is the time of service of the summons or petition or, in the Sheriff Court, the service of the Initial Writ".
Originally I tried to introduce an amendment on that, but I was ruled out by the Solicitor-General. I return to the theme with an amended version to achieve the same end, despite a courteous letter that the Solicitor-General wrote to me, dated 5 June.
A number of cases have been canvassed in that direction. I was guilty of rhyming off a number of legal cases and citations in Committee. I paraphrase a long letter, I hope fairly. In his letter, the Solicitor-General said to me that I had misunderstood the lead case, which is Young v. Armour, 1921 ISLT, page 211. The decision in that case makes it perfectly clear in the law of Scotland that it is contempt to quote from the open record. That is based on a contempt that arises from the misuse of confidential material and has nothing to do with the period of activity for the strict liability concept in the Contempt of Court Bill.
I see the argument that the Solicitor-General has used. There is a two-tier arrangement. The argument that lies between us is a fine point, but my views are shared by a number of legal luminaries in Scotland. I have taken the opportunity of raising the subject more than once in the past few weeks. The Solicitor-General wants to keep the distinction between the active period or strict liability period of contempt as defined in the Bill and the different sort of contempt that protects the open record. Originally,


I misunderstood the Solicitor-General's position, but I thought—as did the Law Society of Scotland, judging from its memorandum—that there was a danger that contempt could run only from the closing of the record. It is common ground between us that that would be unfortunate. We have agreed that the open record will now be protected.
My view is valid—that it would be better to protect the open record under the Bill and have the period of contempt under this legislation running back to cover the open record so that there is one continuous concept of contempt running all the way through.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland takes the view that that would be confusing and it would be better to have two distinct matters—confidentiality protecting the open record, and the Bill protecting the closed record. That, to me, is mistaken. I feel that there is a greater danger that people will look up what they think is the "bible"—that is, the Contempt of Court Act. They will see that the period of civil contempt runs from the closing of the record and they will forget about the confidentiality point, slip into error, publish and be in trouble.
I do not want to make a meal of this, but I think that it would be better to have it all in the one Act. It would be safer to start contempt at a point which covers the open record, as I have suggested, and does not rely on the knowledge of people who look at the Act and find that something else is not covered and that there is a different sort of contempt which stops them printing from the open record. It would be better to codify—to make a dangerous analogy—and have it all covered by one Act. That would lead to certainty and people would know where they stood. Despite the persuasive and courteous letter, I remain unconvinced by the Solicitor-General's arguments.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): If I were to show my paces, I should have to start by advising you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in Scotland the word "record" is pronounced with a long "or".
I appreciate the purity of the approach of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but, as in a number of previous clauses, this is not a codification. It is not a replacement of a large number of concepts of the law of contempt under the common law, and it should not be regarded as a biblical codification of the law. That is to say, anybody who reads the Bill regards it as a matter beyond which there is no law or authority. Therefore, for that reason alone, it would be unfortunate if one acted in a way to give the misleading impression that the Bill was exclusive of the law of contempt in all circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman kindly said that I wrote to him. It is true that the open record is protected in law and in contempt for reasons different than that matters are protected under the Bill from the moment of the closing of the record. Other stages may occur between the issuing of the summons, the issuing of the open record and the closing of the record which are nothing to do with the open record, although they may derive from it, and which it would not be contempt to comment upon. Therefore, to put the open record into the same category as the proceedings following the closed record would be unfortunate. Although it might be clean, it could be equally misleading.
For the reasons that I gave in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the open record is adequately protected and known to be protected in law. I do not believe that anybody will be misled about those matters as a result of the passage of the Bill, so I am satisfied that no amendment is necessary to protect the open record in law. As I say, there are matters that could arise in the process which, if the amendment were to go through, would become the subject of contempt but which presently are not and ought not to be.

Mr. Dewar: There are occasions when I have to agree with the Solicitor-General for Scotland and I notice that as the months go by they become increasingly common. They are often on more contentious matters than this, which is, perhaps, a fine argument about style. At least, we are all agreed that the open record is now protected. The difference is about the banner under which the job should be done.
I am not convinced entirely about the Solicitor-General's position, but the hour is late and I certainly do not intend to detain the House and would not dream of inviting anything as extravagant as a Division. I therefore do the best that I can at this stage and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This has been a long debate, in which hon. Members have dealt with the outstanding problems but with no sort of economy of time. Everyone has had the opportunity to discuss matters. Our debate follows a successful and encouraging Committee stage, during which the Bill was improved. I do not think that the House would wish me to say more than that I commend the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. John Morris: I, too, shall be brief. Hon. Members have taken part in a worthwhile Committee stage and, to a lesser extent, Report stage. We are grateful to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the manner in which they have steered the Bill through the House. The contributions of the Opposition—I say this without being immodest—have made the Bill better. The Attorney-General has accepted the need for his consent before prosecutions are brought. The manner in which that issue was introduced altered the whole tenor of our approach. It was a major relief to the whole of Fleet Street. I welcome very much the wisdom of the Attorney-General in accepting our amendment and ensuring that it was debated early in our proceedings.
On the protection of journalists and the disclosure of sources, I pay tribute to Lord Salmon for the way in which he inspired the Opposition Front Bench to move the new clause. I am also grateful to the Attorney-General for the manner in which he accepted the proposal.
In regard to clause 8, the Attorney-General has been more helpful than the Lord Chancellor, who proved exceedingly stubborn in failing to produce a little list, although much pressed. The position in which we now find ourselves may be imprecise and uncertain, which was not the object, as I understood it, of the Bill. I hope that the matter can be examined again in the other place.
Although it was my wish that the Government would go much further on the question of tape recorders, I hope


that the Lord Chancellor's advice and the practice directions will have a considerable effect and meet a substantial proportion of the day-to-day problems.
I listened carefully to what was a great debate on the jury system. There was genuine and real concern on both sides of the House. The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) and a host of hon. Members were concerned about any encroachment on a system that has stood the test of time. My hon. and learned Friend read a quotation from Blackstone, who foresaw this situation many years ago, when he said:
So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains secret and inviolate not only from all open attacks (which none would be so foolhardy as to make) but also from secret machinations which may sap and undermine it … And however convenient these may appear at first … that though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread.
I fear that the Government will rue the day when they did not take more cognisance of the views expressed so strongly in the House. I hope that the other place will re-examine what is an important thin end of the wedge as regards a system that has been revered in the House and has been part and parcel of the principles of our constitution.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Scotland (Government)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before commencing the Scottish business, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has authorised me to say that the debate will be a general debate covering all the selected amendments. At the end, each motion will be put separately. The selected amendments may be moved at that time.
I must also inform the House that Mr. Speaker has modified his selection of amendments. On motion No. 4, relating to Scottish Estimates, amendment (c) is selected, as is amendment (c) to motion No. 5.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): I beg to move motion No. 2,
That this House takes note of the Report of an Inter-Party Group on the Government of Scotland.
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following four motions:
No. 3,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 68 (Scottish Grand Committee) be amended, in line 20, by leaving out from 'constituencies' to the end of the paragraph and adding 'of whom a quorum shall be ten.'.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
No. 4,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 70 (Scottish estimates) be amended, in line 7, by leaving out 'more' and inserting 'less'.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
No. 5,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 71 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) be amended, in line 15, by leaving out 'two' and inserting 'six'.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
No. 6,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 65 (Procedure in Standing Committees) be amended, in line 1, by inserting at the beginning 'Except as provided in Standing Order No. 68 (Scottish Grand Committee)'.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
As the House will be aware, the background to these motions is that in the aftermath of the repeal of the Scotland Act in 1979 the Government initiated inter-party talks on possible improvements in the parliamentary handling of Scottish business. The terms of reference of these talks were:
to consider whether the present system of government in Scotland could be improved by changes in the procedure, powers and operational arrangements for dealing with Scottish parliamentary business".
We had hoped that these might be literally all-party talks, but, in the event, the Scottish National Party declined to participate. While recording their view that the proposed talks did not concern devolution as they understood the term, both the Labour and Liberal Parties eventually agreed to take part. I did not participate in those talks, but I understand that the atmosphere was cordial and constructive. While recognising the reservations which both the Opposition parties who took part had about the limited terms of reference, I would like to place on record the Government's appreciation of their contribution.
The talks covered a number of aspects of parliamentary procedures affecting Scotland, and the report makes four main positive procedural recommendations.
The first relates to debates by the Scottish Grand Committee on Estimates relating to the Department of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. At present, there is provision for up to six such debates in any one Session. It is now proposed that what has hitherto been a permitted maximum number of debates shall in future be a minimum. In past Sessions this figure has sometimes been attained, but sometimes not. The report expressed the view, with which the Government agree, that in future there should always be at least six such debates each Session.
As well as Estimate debates, the Scottish Grand Committee can at present devote up to two meetings each Session to matter day debates—that is to say, debates on topics of general or specific importance in Scotland relating to Government policy. This arrangement was, I think, originally designed to meet criticisms of inadequate time on the Floor for debates on matters of general Scottish interest. But the report clearly considered that the arrangement did not go far enough. It proposed that in future the maximum number of matter days should be increased to six, with the Opposition parties having the option of insisting on a minimum of four such debates.
Thirdly, the report proposed that the provision in Standing Orders for the appointment of added Members to the Scottish Grand Committee should be removed. The long-standing provision, whereby the Committee of Selection may add up to 15 Members representing constituencies outside Scotland, was designed to enable the Government of the day to secure a majority on the Committee in circumstances where there was no natural Government majority.
Before Labour Members rush to point out that, if that is the intention of the provision, it is ineffective in securing its objective in any case, I shall make no bones about the fact or raise any objection. But the Scottish Grand Committee has not normally sought to operate in a way which makes this a critical factor. Although it most usefully gives an effective Second Reading to some Scottish Bills, there is a procedure for reference to the whole House so that the legislative process cannot be significantly upset by the Government's lack of a majority on the Committee. Of course, there may be a vote against the Government, as happened earlier this Session on a matter day debate, but I do not regard that as a good reason for not making the reform now proposed—nor, I imagine, would hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they are grateful about that.
Finally, the report recommended that the quorum of the Scottish Grand Committee should be reduced from 17 to 10. That seems logical in relation to the reduced size of the Committee.
The report also refers to two other matters on which it leaves the position open without making any recommendations. The first of these was the possibility of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee being held in Edinburgh. Another was the possibility of provision being made for Members representing constituencies other than Scottish constituencies to attend and speak, but not to vote, move amendments, or be counted in the quorum, in the Scottish Grand Committee. I shall refer briefly to those proposals in a moment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I had hoped to interrupt the Leader of the House before he left the question of the number of Estimate days and matter days. All that he has done is to repeat what is in the memorandum. He has not told the House about any of the thinking that lies behind the report. Perhaps there was no thinking.

Mr. Pym: I am fulfilling the Government's undertaking to put before the House motions relating to the conclusions reached after the inter-party talks, to enable the House to decide what it wants to do. That is what I am doing by moving the motions tonight.
The inter-party group also considered the suggestion that Scottish Adjournment debates and questions might be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that greater use might be made of the Scottish Grand Committee for legislation—in particular that the Report stage of Scottish Bills might be taken in the Committee. It considered all those matters but rejected all proposals. Therefore, I have not put before the House motions relating to them.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The list of recommended changes states that:
The Official Opposition should commit itself at the start of each Parliament to an appropriate allocation to the other Opposition parties of the choice of topic for Estimate and Matter Day debates.
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that no time will be given to any minority parties that did not win any seats in the last general election?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter for the Opposition of the day. The quotation given by the hon. Gentleman puts the responsibility for such a decision upon the Opposition. From what he said, assuming that he is in accord with the leadership of his party—we can never be sure—no such opportunity will be given.
The Government have previously indicated to the House that they welcome the report, and that they would, in due course, table motions recommending support for the proposals. The motions now on the Order Paper, if accepted by the House, would thus implement the positive recommendations made in the group's report, in so far as they require amendments to Standing Orders.
Following the "take note" motion, No. 2 on the Order Paper, the first substantive motion in my name, No. 3, would have the effect of doing away with added Members in the Scottish Grand Committee and of reducing the required quorum.
Motion No. 4 would have the effect of substituting a minimum of six Estimate days in the Scottish Grand Committee instead of the present maximum of six days. Motion No. 5 would increase the maximum number of matter day debates in the Scottish Grand Committee from two to six. Motion No. 6 is consequential.
The proposed amendment to Standing Order No. 71 would simply increase the maximum number of matter days to six, and the intention would be that the further provision for a minimum of four matter days at the request of the Opposition would be achieved by convention. That would also be the case with regard to the group's proposals in respect of the choice of topic for Estimate debates remaining with the Opposition; the sharing of the choice of topics for matter day debates between the Government and the Opposition; and the proposed allocation by the official Opposition of an appropriate allocation to the other Opposition parties of the choice of topics for Estimates and


matter day debates. However, that would be a matter for the Opposition of the day. All these issues, and those covered in the amendments tabled by hon. Members are entirely for the House to decide.
It may be useful to the House if I indicate briefly the Government's attitude towards some of the amendments, particularly that in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). The amendment reflects views for which the Government have already expressed support in the inter-party talks.
There was no agreement in the inter-party group on this proposal. As I have indicated, the Government regard this issue as entirely one for the House to decide. Nevertheless, and without pre-empting what hon. Members may wish to say, it would perhaps not be inappropriate for me to say that the Government would regard this proposal as a modest but useful modification of our procedures. It would help to underline the unified United Kingdom character of our procedures and the proper interest of hon. Members in all matters relating to every part of the country.
The amendment to motion No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) would, if approved by the House, accept in principle that it would be desirable if the Scottish Grand Committee were to hold some of its meetings in Edinburgh for an experimental period. The proposal to hold Committee sittings in Edinburgh was considered at some length during the talks. The group came to no conclusion in the matter beyond proposing that it was an issue on which the House should be given the opportunity to express its views.
As the report indicates, this is an issue on which there are strongly held and conflicting opinions. Whatever the will of the House on this matter, sittings away from Westminster could, as the report points out, pose
formidable practical and organisational problems.
I would see these as ruling out meetings of Scottish Standing Committees in Edinburgh. As no motions and no amendments have been tabled, I assume that hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. However, several amendments refer to the possibility of sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh. The Government fully agree, but this is a matter for decision by the House and the Government's stance on the issue is neutral.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has referred exlusively to Edinburgh. Why should the Scottish Grand Committee not be free to decide either to meet in Edinburgh or in any other part of Scotland?

Mr. Pym: I understand that contemplation was given to that option in the inter-party talks and that opinion was confined almost exclusively to Edinburgh. That is why I have referred to Edinburgh.
Several amendments refer to the possibility of sittings of the Grand Committee in Edinburgh and we think that it is right for the Government to be neutral on the principle. If the House decides that it wishes to proceed in this way, that is a practical possibility. If the House votes in favour of the proposal—[Interruption.] I am glad that Scottish Labour Members are enjoying the details of this debate, which I would regard as matters of some importance. It seems that they regard them as matters of some ridicule. It ill behoves them to treat the debate in such a manner in the light of the extraordinary history of the immensely

lengthy debates that we had on the vital topic of how the government of Scotland could best be conducted in the context of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He may understand our levity when I say that I was asking what Edinburgh had done to deserve having the Scottish Grand Committee to itself.

Mr. Pym: I do not have the slightest idea, but I imagine that that is something which Aberdeen has not done.
If however, the House were to vote in favour of this proposal, it is desirable that it should be on an experimental basis, and that there should be some further opportunity for consideration to be given to the details of its practical implementation. It would accordingly seem to be premature at this stage for the House to be committed to proposals, such as those in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), which would have the effect of enabling the Scottish Grand Committee to resolve at its first meeting of the Session to hold all its meetings, whether for the consideration of Estimates, matter days, or other business, in Edinburgh or elsewhere in Scotland—[Interruption.] That is not my responsibility. I am making comments about it because I believe that it is of general interest to the House.
It is also undesirable and unnecessary for those proposed procedural changes to come formally into operation before the beginning of next Session. A number of amendments on the Order Paper would delete from the Government motions the words
from the beginning of next Session".
I do not believe that that is an appropriate amendment.
I said at the outset that the Government had thought it right to consider very carefully what was said in this report. I hold by that view, and consider that it would be better to bring those changes into effect from the beginning of next Session. Moreover, the spirit of this group of amendments is already being largely met. It has been agreed that there will be six Estimates debates in the Scottish Grand Committee over the next few weeks. There has also already been one matter day in the Committee, and my right hon. Friend has made clear to the Opposition that he is willing to have a second matter day debate before the House rises for the recess. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any practical purpose in introducing those procedural changes at this stage of the present Session.
I note that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has tabled an amendment to motion No. 5 proposing that the Committee on Scottish Affairs should be given the right to select a subject arising from one of its reports as the subject of one matter day debate each Session. I am not sure that it is desirable that one Committee of this House should be enabled in that way to determine the nature of the business in another Committee. The inter-party group also recommended in its report that the choice of the topic for matter day debates should in future be shared between the Government and the Opposition. I am, however, sympathetic to the idea behind this amendment and would regard it as entirely appropriate that a report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, recommended by the House for debate, should be an obvious candidate for selection in such discussions.
These proposals are not of a fundamental nature. As we have made clear to the House, the inter-party talks were concerned not with a Scottish Assembly or Executive, but with the possibility of making some improvements within the existing parliamentary framework. The people of Scotland had already made clear that they did not give the Scotland Act the degree of support which Parliament had decided that fundamental constitutional change should require. [Interruption.] The noise on Opposition Benches shows the acute embarrassment of those hon. Members. I believe that that is the sense of their noises.
Even within the limited context of changes in parliamentary procedure, the danger has to be recognised that too wide an extension of special procedures for the consideration of Scottish business might lead to pressures for the restriction of the opportunities for hon. Members to raise Scottish issues on the Floor of the House. That was one of the considerations which the inter-party group took into account in its rejection of proposals for the extension of the scope of the Scottish Grand Committee to cover Adjournment debates and Question Time. I believe that the group reached a wise and right conclusion in that respect.
Therefore, while I acknowledge the limited purpose of the group's proposals, I suggest that they represent a useful and realistic series of measures which, taken together, would, if the House so decided, constitute a valuable improvement in our procedures in the interests of the better government of Scotland and the better conduct of the affairs of the House generally. In that spirit, I recommend the motions to the House.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craighton): I make it clear at the outset that for the Opposition there will be a free vote on all these matters. We hear what the Leader of the House has said about the Government side, although we are rather sceptical about that, at any rate so far as it concerns the payroll vote.
The matters before us tonight are scarcely earth-shaking. If some of the Minister's comments were greeted with a certain amount of ridicule from the Opposition, it was because some of us remember the kind of speeches that he made during the passage of the Scotland Bill. We were told that if we turned down that legislation, which was unsatisfactory from the point of view of introducing meaningful devolution to Scotland, the Conservative Government would introduce something much better. A whole range of choices was offered, from federalism and quasi-federalism to a deliberative assembly. There were five options. The Leader of the House put his name to all that in a book published not only by him but by the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has gone quite far on false promises made during the passage of that legislation.
Tonight's debate and the proposals before us have nothing whatever to do with devolution. I make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Pym: Hear, hear.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear", but at the beginning of the so-called inter-party talks the Government were pushing the line that we were dealing with some kind of substitute for devolution. It has never been that. I reiterate briefly—I shall not go into the

detail—that the Labour Party is and remains committed to devolution. We are not dealing with that tonight, however. We are dealing with very minor matters about the government of Scottish business in the House. Nevertheless, in the context of the opportunites for debating Scottish affairs they are quite important, and I welcome this debate.
I must point out, however, that the Government have been extraordinarily dilatory—in my view, quite cynically so—in bringing forward these proposals. The first meeting to discuss the question of inter-party talks took place as long ago as 18 July 1979. There was a great deal of dilatoriness during the 1979–80 Session. Eventually, there were two meetings for inter-party talks, in which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) participated for the Liberal Party, in April and May 1980. There was then a further delay before the Government finally produced the report and the answer to the written question on 7 August 1980, when they said that they agreed with the recommendations and would bring them before the House. It is now 16 June 1981. It has taken the Government 10 months to bring the recommendations before the House.
The Leader of the House said that it was never intended that the recommendations should apply in the current Session. That is completely untrue. Certainly the Opposition made it clear that we always intended that the recommendations should apply in the present Session. I shall not go into chapter and verse. The right hon. Gentleman has only to look at early-day motion No. 275 put down on 19 March this year in the names of myself and my hon. Friends criticising the delay in bringing these matters forward for debate. We made it absolutely clear then that we expected these proposals to be implemented in the current Session, and that has been our view throughout.
Interestingly enough, despite the Government's efforts to delay this so that it would be quite impracticable for these matters to be dealt with in the current Session, the additional matter days are still possible, and that is all that is at issue. The Leader of the House referred to these and the six Estimates days as though this were some great triumph on the part of the Government, but we always have six Estimates days and two matter days so there is no great advance.
We are dealing here with a comparatively small number of additional matter days, and the Estimates days are already decided in the current year. Running to 7 July, we have a number of days before the House goes into Summer Recess, or a number of days in the autumn spillover, which would give ample opportunities for the additional days that are provided for in these motions for matter day debates to be taken in the current Session. Therefore, I recommend my hon. Friends to vote for the amendments in my name, which would allow these matters to be implemented in the current Session. It would be inexcusable if the Government voted against that modest proposition.
I shall turn in a minute to the substance of the motions but first I want to mention the Scottish National Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] That is precisely the point. The SNP has decided today, with a certain amount of cynical publicity, to boycott these debates. But the SNP already boycotts a good many other debates, in the sense that its members are not here for them. To boycott this evening's debate is, in my view, extremely silly.
The SNP is still trying to salve its conscience over helping to bring down a Labour Government and thereby bringing to an end the Scotland Act. Labour Members will not forgive the SNP for that. But the SNP has said that it is not interested in increasing the number of Estimates or matter days that can be taken in Committee, and we shall remember that when we come to those debates. Indeed, I shall be perfectly happy if SNP Members do not turn up at any of the debates, because when they do their contributions are rarely worth listening to.
The Estimates motion simply guarantees the six days, but in most Sessions in my experience, over a considerable period, we have usually managed to get six days. It is a slight advance that these are now guaranteed, and that is perfectly acceptable.
The practice has been to have two matter days, and the motions would provide for a maximum of six, with a guaranteed minimum of four. We could have the guaranteed minimum of four during the current parliamentary Session, despite the late date of the debate. That is a modest improvement, because the matter days, apart from anything else, can be spread throughout the whole of the parliamentary Session in a way that Estimates days cannot, and that will give flexibility in our discussions upstairs, which is worth having.
With regard to the rights of minority parties, I stand by what was said in the inter-party report. When the new arrangements are brought into operation there will be an agreement on our part, at the start of each Parliament, as to what discretion would be allowed to the minority parties in the choosing of subjects for Estimates. It has not been done this year and I stand by that decision as well, because these provisions have not been implemented. But I stand by the undertaking that we gave, and when we get into the new arrangements I shall consult the minority parties, if they are willing to consult me.
The adding of English Members has been an anomaly and I am glad that it has now been eliminated. I do not suppose that any English Members will be too unhappy about the denial of the prospect of sitting on the Scottish Grand Committee. The recommendation about the quorum follows from that and I accept it.
I have no strong feelings about the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), except that I think it is deplorable that we do not have a regular opportunity of discussing the reports of the Select Committee. We should arrange our affairs so that we do so at least once, and on occasion more than once, in a Session. It is probably unnecessary to amend Standing Orders to gain that objective, but I hope that it will be achieved.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Given the proposals for matter days, in which the Opposition are involved, should not the Government also consider giving some of their time to the minority parties?

Mr. Millan: The arrangement for the choice of subjects on Estimates days rests—and always has rested—with the Opposition. The six Estimates days are for the Opposition to choose. Until now, matter days have been for the Government to decide. Although there is consultation about the timing, as indeed there is for Estimates days, the ultimate decision about matter days is for the Government to take.
Under these arrangements, we are arguing that matter days should be agreed between the Government and the

Opposition. The undertaking to provide for a choice of subject by the minority parties straddles both the Estimates and matter days. Therefore, my hon. Friend's wish might be fulfilled. However, such things are best dealt with by agreement and not by writing them into Standing Orders.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservative Party was in Opposition it offered the minority parties a particular day in the Estimates debate? The Opposition have not even asked us what we think. That is not a good precursor of what may happen when these reforms have been made.

Mr. Millan: If I have given an undertaking, I shall discharge it. When the Conservative Party was in Opposition it had fewer hon. Members than we have. It might sometimes have been desperate to find suitable subjects because it had so little to say. However, we can discuss such issues when the motions have been accepted. I stand by the undertaking that I gave.
There are difficulties about taking questions and Adjournment debates in Committee. They are not intrinsic difficulties, but it would be tempting for the business managers to take Scottish business off the Floor of the House. I do not want that to happen, but other hon. Members may take a different view. However, there is nothing on the Order Paper to give rise to this subject.
I turn to the question whether the Scottish Grand Committee should or could meet in Scotland, and specifically Edinburgh. If hon. Members are to reach a decision it might be better to view the issue in the wider context of Scotland. I do not criticise the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), but his amendment mentions Edinburgh rather than Scotland. I hope that he will not disagree that it is the matter of meeting in Scotland that is at issue. However, if the House were to be in favour of that, the meetings might take place in Edinburgh. Nevertheless, I would prefer to consider the question in the wider context and to retain a flexibility to meet elsewhere in Scotland.
I shall not go over the arguments in detail as they are familiar to hon. Members. The argument for meeting in Scotland—and specifically in Edinburgh—centres on bringing the work of Parliament nearer to the electorate. It is as simple as that. As we have distinctive arrangements for dealing with Scottish business it would not be a major step to change those distinctive arrangements to enable debate to take place in Scotland rather than in Westminster.
The arguments against meeting in Scotland are matters of practicality rather than principle. There are difficulties with travelling and finding time for the debates in Scotland in a way compatible with the wishes of Members also to participate in debates in the House.
The Select Committee has met in Scotland as well as at Westminster, but on occasion that has given rise to difficulties in relation to the responsibilities of hon. Members in Westminster. Apart from that, a Select Committee has a comparatively small number of members who can pair ad hoc, and it is much more difficult with 71 members of the Scottish Grand Committee.
Picking up a point made by the Leader of the House, I think that the arguments are much more in practical terms about the Grand Committee rather than a Standing Committee, but that, again for different reasons, would


create practical problems and deny the members of the Standing Committee a valid opportunity of participating in work here. A Standing Committee on Scottish business has been meeting today. It would have been impossible for hon. Members on that Committee to do work in the House and take part in this debate. I think it has to be the Grand Committee rather than the Standing Committee.
Each hon. Member will have a different view on these matters. As there is a free vote, it is not for me to come down on one side or the other, although I am not convinced about the desirability of meeting in Edinburgh. That is a matter which the Scottish Grand Committee should decide for itself. It would not be right for the House, with English Members participating, to decide one way or the other on meeting in Edinburgh.
The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Angus is to be welcomed. It is an enabling provision, and I shall vote for it. It does not say that the Scottish Grand Committee must or shall meet in Edinburgh, but that it shall have the opportunity of meeting in Edinburgh. The amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) put flesh on that enabling provision and provide that the Scottish Grand Committee, when it is discussing either matter days or Estimate days, can make the decision for itself. I shall vote for that.
It will have been noted that the amendments to motion No. 3 have not been selected, because the view has been taken that there are practical difficulties—I think they are more theoretical—about the Scottish Grand Committee being committed, in terms of amendments (c) and (d), to draw up a programme of events for the whole Session. I do not think that that was intended. The amendments would not necessarily have that effect.
In practical terms, the amendments to motions Nos. 4 and 5 do the job in any case because they give the opportunity for matter or Estimates days to be taken in Scotland rather than in Westminster. What we are discussing is the principle whether the Scottish Grand Committee should make the decision for itself.

Mr. Russell Johnston: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Grand Committee should decide for itself, surely he means in practical terms that the majority party in the Scottish Grand Committee will decide for itself.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that there are only three Liberal Members in Scotland. But he should blame the electors for that and not me. The majority party does not have a party view on the matter. My right hon. and hon. Friends will make up their minds whatever I say, and I do not think that they will all vote the same way. That is a matter for them; it is not for me to commit them.
I shall vote for the enabling amendment of the hon. Member for South Angus and I shall support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, rather than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, which is comprehended by those amendments. That is my advice to my colleagues.
We are dealing with a modest improvement in the arrangements for Scottish business. It has nothing to do

with devolution, but that much more important matter is a topic which we shall wish to return to on another occasion.

Mr. Peter Fraser: My amendment to the motion would add the words:
and considers it desirable that the Scottish Grand Committee should for an experimental period be enabled to hold sittings in Edinburgh from time to time".
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) referred to the report of the inter-party working group on the government of Scotland. I shall address myself only to the final section, which is described as the
Matter left over for decision by the House".
The final two sentences read:
It was concluded therefore that there was no basis for a recommendation from the Inter-Party Group in favour of Edinburgh sittings for the Scottish Grand or Standing Committees. This was a matter on which individual Members would have different views and which would have to be decided by the House when it came to debate the Report of the talks".
It seemed to me that it was desirable that a Back Bencher, from either side of the House, should table an amendment to give hon. Members the opportunity to consider the point on which the inter-party group was unable to reach an agreed view.
I am grateful for the constructive and reasonable approach of the right hon. Member for Craigton. What I am arguing for falls into three parts—first, that as a matter of principle the Scottish Grand Committee should sit in Scotland, secondly that we should do so for an experimental period and thirdly that Edinburgh should be the location for the meeting.
During the long years when devolution was at the front of the political stage in Scotland, the proposal to hold Scottish Grand Committee meetings in Scotland flitted across the stage from time to time. It would be wrong to pretend to those who believe in a wholly separate Scotland, a federalist Scotland within the United Kingdom or any other major form of constitutional change that what I am arguing for is a substantial substitute for what they want to do.
We should not regard the matter as being the exclusive preserve of Scottish Members. We should contemplate a simple change in our proceedings that will make the meetings both more visible and more accessible to the people of Scotland. That is a reasonable and desirable objective. Being a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I identify within Scotland a constituency of interest in the detailed workings of Parliament. I do not believe that what I suggest can be disregarded.
The Select Committee has already produced a number of reports, which are undoubtedly of interest to hon. Members but which also have a specific constituency of interest in Scotland. I pick out just two: one on inward investment and the other on the location of Civil Service jobs in the West of Scotland. They are matters of great interest in Scotland, and the objective of having them debated within Scotland is well worth while.
Given that view, I then have to turn my attention to what I freely accept are valid arguments advanced by the inter-party group, which says that it is not simply a matter of saying "As from next Wednesday, let the Scottish Grand Committee go somewhere in Scotland." There are formidable practical and organisational problems, and I do not underestimate them.
Even in the Select Committee there have been times when hon. Members with particular interests in such matters as energy have found it difficult, after a morning's deliberations in Glasgow or Edinburgh, to return to the House in time to take part in energy questions the same afternoon. I do not underestimate the desire of hon. Members to be present for such occasions. It is vital that they should continue to participate. Nothing would be worse for the involvement of Scotland within this United Kingdom Parliament than if they found themselves relegated to a second-class status simply because they did not enjoy the regular opportunity to take part in debates of United Kingdom importance, by the very fact of the other proceedings in which they were involved.
I accept those difficulties and appreciate that they must be carefully considered, but I am not prepared simply to say that they are incapable of resolution. Therefore, rather than suggest that we should now be taking a decision once and for all that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Scotland, I suggest that we should give serious consideration to the matter at least for an experimental period.
I turn to the location of the Committee's meetings. I accept what the right hon. Member for Craigton said. I am not wedded to its holding its meetings in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East, Mr. Henderson), with a Parliament Hall in St. Andrews university, might argue that that is a very good location. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) will advance an argument for Perth. On a wild occasion, I might even suggest that the Committee meet in the abbey of Arbroath.
The more serious point is that when the Select Committee has met in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh it has moved for specific objectives. Under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) we went to Aberdeen, without any dissent from members of the Committee, because we were discussing fishing. Aberdeen was a natural focal point. No one involved in it thought that it was wrong. An important indication of how valuable it was was that within weeks the Government accepted what came out of that report. When the Committee was discussing the location of Civil Service jobs in the West of Scotland, it was natural to go to Glasgow to consider that. When it has been interviewing, examining or cross-examining the Secretary of State for Scotland, Edinburgh is a natural location for that trauma for him.
Without being fixed in my view about where the Scottish Grand Committee should meet, I should not like to make the Scottish Grand Committee into some form of peripatetic publicity stunt where a Government of Left or Right decided that things were looking gloomy at Fort William and, given the difficult electoral difficulty at the time, decided to locate the Committee there. That would not only undermine the seriousness of its intentions but would undermine the seriousness of the locational arrangements that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is making. For that reason, we should go to Edinburgh.
Of the three points I have outlined, that is probably the least important. It is important that we should give to that constituency of interest in Scotland an opportunity visibly to see what the House does. People may from time to time find it both tedious and boring, but I trust that if we gave them that opportunity, contrary to what many may say,

especially the Scottish National Party—which has not had the grace to attend or participate in the debate—it would demonstrate to the people of Scotland that in dealing with their affairs we treated them with the utmost seriousness and concern.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The House should be reminded before we go any further that 1,230,937 Scots voted on 1 March 1979 to set up a directly elected Scottish Assembly. That was 33 per cent. of the Scottish electorate and a clear majority of those who voted.
Two months later, on 3 May 1979, 33 per cent. of the British electorate voted Conservative—a minority of those who voted—but, for some reason best known to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), a British majority of 33 per cent. is a good enough mandate for a full Parliament of undiluted Thatcherism while the Scottish majority of 33 per cent. is totally meaningless. As a member of that majority, I want to make it abundantly clear that the issue of devolution is not dead. If any hon. Member is under the illusion that it is, it is time that he disabused himself.
I shall concentrate on those who voted against devolution in 1979. A large number of those, excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who voted "No" in 1979 were Conservatives. It is relevant to the debate to reflect on the advice given to Conservative voters in Scotland by one of my distinguished kinsmen—a noble Lord resident in my constituency, Lord Home of the Hirsel. What better to quote from than the Berwickshire News and East Lothian Advertiser of 27 February 1979? It states:
Lord Home said that he was recommending a 'No' vote because he believed it was the only way to ensure that this important matter went back to Parliament.
'Constitutional change carries with it an absolute obligation to make sure that the change is for the better,' he declared. 'It ought to be arrived at by a consensus between the political parties.
'The only way we can make sure of that is to have a Speaker's Conference to which the Conservative party is pledged, and with which all parties would undoubtedly co-operate.'
Lord Home continued:
Political division is dangerous—
he should know about that—
and I think that steps could be taken under the chairmanship of the Speaker. The all-party approach has not been tried and it ought to be, even if it means deferring a decision for a year or 18 months.
Here we all are, not a year or 18 months later but more than two years further on, and what do we have? We do not have a Speaker's Conference and we do not have a radical new set of devolution proposals from a dynamic, decentralising Government. We have this pitiful set of proposals, extracted from the Leader of the House under a good deal of pressure and after a very long time. They are a pathetic rag-bag of minor amendments to the procedures of the Scottish Grand Committee.
We are being asked to take note of a five-page report that claims to cover the government of Scotland but, in fact, is only tinkering with the procedures of the Scottish Grand Committee. The Committee is already the epitome of a talking shop, and the proposals will enable us to talk even more about even more matters and Estimates, but still Scottish Members will not be entrusted with Scottish decision-making. Unless an amendment is passed, we


shall still be corralled upstairs, as if to emphasise the irrelevance of the Committee's work to the real life of real people in Scotland.
Sadly, it appears that we shall no longer be a multiracial Committee. We shall miss providing a purgatory for naughty English Members. We have enjoyed the company of a silent and chastened hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and were looking forward perhaps to the company of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) or even the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) in due course. It did no harm for English Conservatives to have a glimpse of the horrors of Scottish administration, but I suppose that they were an anachronism and it is right that they should go.
The amendment that stands in my name—to leave out "for an experimental period"—would make it possible for the Scottish Grand Committee to sit in our own capital city of Edinburgh. No one is under the illusion that that would lead directly to an improvement in the way in which our business is handled, but it could lead indirectly to a much-needed reappraisal of the role of Scottish Members and of the machinery of government in Scotland. Indeed, it could lead to a badly needed new consideration of devolved handling of Scottish affairs. It would, incidentally, be good for Scottish Members to work for, say, one day a month in Edinburgh in our own country and might provide more time in the House for English regional debates, such as that yesterday on the affairs of the North-West of England, and that, in turn, might stimulate greater interest in English regional identity, which would do nothing but good.
A move to Edinburgh might help Scottish Members to have a more direct impact on the work of the Scottish Civil Service, which leads a protected life far away in Edinburgh. It might help to make people in Scotland more aware of our democratic institutions, which can on many occasions seem terribly remote. It might also help to make Scottish Members more aware of the wider relevance of their work.
Sometimes, during the course of late sittings on Scottish affairs at Westminster, an almost incestuous attitude prevails among Scottish hon. Members on both sides. We get to know each other very well. There is a danger that we shall lose our awareness of the people we are supposed to represent. The immediate presence of Scottish listeners and the Scottish press in Edinburgh might help to concentrate our minds and do away with some of the frivolity that has been known to arise during these night debates.
One suggestion before the House is that all 71 Members of the Scottish Grand Committee should be empowered go walk about or on safari throughout Scotland complete with clerks, shorthand writers, baggage, papers and all the rest—a sort of Harry Gourlay's flying circus. I am not sure that this is necessarily a serious option. There are ample opportunities for the Scottish Select Committee to take evidence in different parts of Scotland. Only yesterday we were taking evidence from the Secretary of State for Scotland in Edinburgh. This sort of exercise is appropriate for the Scottish Select Committee. We are forced to wait for a directly elected Scottish Assembly. It might, therefore, increase our effectiveness if the Scottish Grand Committee was empowered to carry out its considerations

in Edinburgh. The assembly building is ready for use. The Civil Service in New and Old St. Andrew's House is long overdue for better scrutiny.
Edinburgh has been the capital of Scotland since the fifteenth century. It is right that Scottish Members should be given the opportunity to work in our capital city. I hope that the opportunity will be taken.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am surprised to hear the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) say that he feels that the quality of his speeches would be better if we were located in Edinburgh rather than here. It is my impression, having served on the Select Committee with the hon. Gentleman in several locations both here and in Scotland, that his contributions have been of a uniform standard wherever he speaks.
The hon. Gentleman's comment about his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) seemed somewhat odd, bearing in mind that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, as well as being a Labour Member of Parliament, is a Scotsman. It is, therefore, not surprising that he should show a considerable interest in Scottish affairs. The comments were particularly surprising when it is remembered that they come from an hon. Member of a party that has frequently provided, for the worse, the Government of the United Kingdom since 1945. Yet only in the Parliament of 1966 to 1970 did the Labour Party ever possess a majority in England.
A party that has governed England on many occasions without a majority in England is particularly ill placed to make remarks about Scottish hon. Members who sit for English constituencies having an interest in affairs in Scotland. I would be surprised if a number of Labour Members did not continue to take a considerable interest in and make a valuable contribution to, Northern Ireland affairs.
If hon. Members wish to talk about being nearer to the people and being able to communicate better with the people of Scotland, I would have thought that, more significant than any decision about where we sit would be a decision to televise the proceedings of the House or its Committees, wherever they sit. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the occasion when you gave your casting vote early in this Parliament which resulted in the House of Commons voting for the first time for the televising of our proceedings at some time in the future. It begins to look like some time, maybe, perhaps.
I doubt whether the number of people who have observed all the meetings of our Select Committee in Scotland would fill half the Benches of the House. Had the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee been televised, they would have been seen by tens of thousands of people, even on a poor night.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) made some curious remarks about free votes. He said that all Labour Members have free votes. Yet he then recommended his hon. Friends to vote for what I consider to be a trivial amendment about whether we should start the changes this Session. It is a matter of little importance. It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman should speak of free votes one minute, and, the next minute, recommend his hon. Friends to support a trivial amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that there could be an argument for Standing Committees


meeting in Edinburgh. He also viewed with sympathy the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart), suggesting that, somewhat akin to the way in which hon. Members who are not members of Statutory Instruments Committees may address them, hon. Members might be able to address the Scottish Grand Committee. It is unfortunate that the House will not have an opportunity tonight of expressing a view on the matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us how we can do that.
Leaving aside the merits of the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland, I believe that there is a stronger case for Standing Committees meeting there. Just as Select Committees take evidence from people and it is therefore convenient for many people, including hon. Members, for those meetings to take place in Scotland, so Standing Committees spend a long time going through the detail of legislation, about which hon. Members may wish to consult people outside the House. It would, therefore, be valuable if Standing Committees were able to meet in Edinburgh, where it would be easier for people to make representations to Members while those Committees were sitting. In discussing whether the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Edinburgh, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to discuss the matter alongside the merits of doing the same thing with Standing Committees.
I note, too, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) about Select Committee recommendations. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Craigton said about the spirit of the amendment, as opposed to its terms. I hope that my right hon. Friends would always be prepared to arrange for discussion of matters which the Select Committee recommended should be debated by the House or by one of its Committees. I therefore support the spirit of the amendment, but not its terms.
Lastly, I want to draw attention to one serious problem that could arise if we decided to meet from time to time in either Scotland or, more particularly Edinburgh, depending on which amendment we choose. I can envisage a conflict between our interests in the House concerning the government of the United Kingdom and the time available for issues in Scotland. It depends on which hat we are wearing. On a considerable number of recent Mondays there have been meetings of the Select Committee in Scotland. If we increase the number of meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, and decide that many, all, or some, will take place in Scotland, there will be clashes of interest between the hon. Members who sit on the Select Committee and all the Scottish Members who sit on the Scottish Grand Committee. That leaves aside the question whether Standing Committees should meet in Scotland.
In the comparatively small amount of time in the parliamentary year during which it would be practical and sensible to consider meeting in Scotland, we would have a considerable conflict of interest about how best to use that time in terms of whether it should be Grand Committee time, Standing Committee time, or Select Committee time. We must move gradually and thoughtfully in the direction of more meetings of Committees outside the House.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The Leader of the House was a little puzzled earlier by the levity in the House. Surely it was understandable because we had to listen to an abundance of lawyers for six hours this afternoon. Moreover, many hon. Members from the West of Scotland are still reeling under the impact of the hacksaw that the parliamentary Boundary Commission is wielding. Perhaps that explains the temporary absence of the PPS to the Secretary of State for Scotland—although I notice that the Secretary of State himself is sitting pretty in the proposed boundary changes.
On several occasions today I met my good and hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in a kilt. He explained to me that he was upstairs serving on the Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill and that it was the best way to keep cool.

Mr. James Hamilton: Did my hon. Friend notice that our hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had one sporran at the front and another at the back? He did not know whether he was coming or going.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knew that this attack would be made upon him.

Mr. Craigen: Knowing the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) in these matters, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he knew which Lobby to go into.
For the past 20 or 30 years, there have been suggestions that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Scotland. Tonight, we have the opportunity to do something about it and to bring it about. I hope that at the end of the debate the House will agree to support the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). It proposes that the Scottish Grand Committee should have the authority to meet in Scotland. It therefore encompasses the points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
There is nothing to preclude the Committee from deciding that it wishes to hold certain, although not necessarily all, of its sittings in Edinburgh. I have no doubt that the Property Services Agency would want to have tenants for the Royal high school building. There is an equal argument for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in that other high school in Glasgow presently used by the Strathclyde region for its council meetings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said, there is no reason why the Committee, if it so wishes, should not sit at Aberdeen or Dundee—

Mr. Home Robertson: Or Rockall.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) has done us a favour in introducing the possibility of meetings in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has proposed that the meetings should be experimental. It has taken about two years for the House to find time to debate these motions. I suspect that a decision on an experiment would tend to be postponed. We should seek to give the Scottish Grand Committee the necessary authority to meet


in Scotland. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs as has already shown that it can assemble quite easily in Scotland.
I am under no illusion about the strengths and weaknesses of the Scottish Grand Committee. In its present form, it has been one of the more disappointing aspects of parliamentary activity that I have encountered since entering the House. In many respects the Scottish Grand Committee is more impressive outwith the House than when one sees it in operation within the confines of Westminster. It is an expedient for the better regulation of Scottish business within Westminster. It exists because we require special Scottish legislation, because there is a Scottish Office and because nowadays a forum is required to discuss various Scottish topics. I think that everyone will agree that those topics would not receive sufficient time on the Floor of the House.
However, it is essential that Scottish Members should play the fullest part possible in United Kingdom affairs in the House. We should make certain that from time to time there are important and significant debates on Scottish affairs on the Floor of the House, otherwise Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will become less familiar with the problems that we are experiencing.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is there not a dilemma for my hon. Friend? The existence of the Scottish Grand Committee gives the Government of the day the excuse to avoid debates on the Floor of the House by saying that the issue may be discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Craigen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It depends on the Opposition of the day to ensure that the Government do not get away with that easy argument. The fact that we are locked upstairs in Room 14 does not necessarily mean that other parts of the House are made more aware or familiar with Scottish problems.
The great embarrassment that the Government face is that, even with their extra 15 Members, 22 Scottish Tories are still no match for the 43 plus one, two or three Opposition Members combined. That is their basic problem. Under the present Government, there is no way in which anything that really matters to Scotland will be resolved within the Scottish Grand Committee whether or not it meets in Scotland. The only thing that will be resolved will be in the "Aye" or "No" Lobby in the House. I can well understand why the Government are liberating their 15 non-Scottish Members from compulsory attendance in the Scottish Grand Committee. They recognise their inability to steer through the Scottish Grand Committee any legislation of any import.
I disagree with a theme which was running through the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. As long as we have a unitary Parliament, the Scottish Grand Committee will be neither a Scottish Assembly in limbo nor a Scottish Parliament in embryo. It is a forum in which Scottish affairs and issues can be discussed. That should not be to the exclusion of discussing Scottish issues on the Floor of the house.
I hope that the House will give authority for the Committee to meet in Scotland. Notwithstanding the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), perhaps Mr. Speaker, who, I know, likes to visit Scotland now and again, might chair the initial

meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee when it meets in Scotland. I hope that the House will support the proposal.

Mr. David Myles: I had no intention to speak in the debate, but after listening to the contributions from both sides of the House I felt that I should put in a word.
I largely agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I do not believe that anyone would think that I was less Scottish than I am. I cannot get over the fact that
a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
If they meet anywhere, the same people will come to the same conclusions. The same debate will take place, no matter whether the Gallery is filled in Edinburgh, Aberdeen or here. There are a number of exiled Scots in the Gallery at the moment.
It should be mentioned that there is a great feeling in Scotland that there is an ignorance in England of Scottish matters. If we hived off to debate in Edinburgh or anywhere else our little parochial problems, we would prevent English Members with a vital interest in Scottish affairs from hearing the debates and matters concerning Scotland. The Scottish fiddlers' rally is coming to the Albert Hall next Saturday night. I sincerely hope that all the Anglo-Scots and many Englishmen will hear that rally, because that will—

Mr. Home Robertson: Does the hon. Member expect the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) to turn up on that occasion if he pays as much attention to the Scottish fiddlers' rally as he is paying to this debate?

Mr. Myles: I have already made reference to that, so there is no need to go on about it. We should go to the Scottish fiddlers' rally. I promised the RSPCC that, if possible, I would give a little plug.
I must be serious and stay in order. We need the Scottish voice down here. We need the people in England to understand the problems of Scotland, because as long as we have a unitary Parliament, which I want to see continue, those people must understand our problems.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Liverpool and Birmingham?

Mr. Myles: I hardly ever came out of Scotland before I came here to the House. I used to think that English people ought to know where Aberchirder, Huntly, Turriff and Inverurie were—I have deliberately missed out most of the Banffshire towns—but when I came here I discovered that I had only a vague idea where places like Liverpool and Birmingham were. I therefore believe that that spread of education should take place and that it can best take place by loud mouths such as I coming down here, staying here and speaking here so that English Members, if they can understand us, may learn.
I disagree with the proposal on another count, due to my canny Scottish upbringing. I believe that there will be a certain amount of expense. We should consider the expense and inconvenience involved. It is not all that convenient for members of the Scottish Grand Committee to go up there, to spend the money getting up there or even to pay the rent of the Royal high school in Edinburgh. I believe that we should continue to meet down here and educate the English in Scottish affairs.

Mr. Robert Hughes: This debate on the proceedings of the Scottish Grand Committee has nothing whatever to do with devolution. I say that as an unrepentant opponent of devolution. I am glad that so many hon. Members this evening have accepted that, however long the Scottish Grand Committee sits and wherever in Scotland it may sit, these modest proposals are not a substitute for devolution. I say that still believing that devolution would not be a good thing for the people of Scotland. It has always seemed to me that there is confusion in some people's minds which leads to the view that the place of decision-making is important. It is not the location but the quality and purpose of the decision-making that is important.
I have always believed that the main purpose of the Labour Party, whether in Scotland or in the United Kingdom, is to ensure that working people receive from the State the benefits and the investment to which they are due. That has remained my proposition throughout all our discussions. I therefore do not intend to address myself to the arguments that have been advanced about devolution. Battle has been joined and those arguments will continue, but I am not concerned this evening with the devolutionary aspects, if any, of where the Scottish Grand Committee should sit.
Having said that, if the majority of Members of Parliament in Scotland wish to meet as a Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Aberdeen, I believe that they should be free to make that choice. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is free to meet anywhere in Scotland it desires. I do not see why any different principle should apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
That does not mean that I believe that moving the Committee to Edinburgh or anywhere else will make any major impact on the manner in which people in Scotland view the activities and the work of Scottish Members of Parliament. This was touched upon by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) who spoke of the relatively small number of people who have been able personally to witness the proceedings of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The same is true of the Scottish Grand Committee. Very few people indeed would be able directly to see what we got up to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made some fairly disparaging remarks about the Scottish Grand Committee. I must confess that during my darkest moment in that Committee I have often thought that the best argument against devolution would be to put the Scottish Grand Committee on show in Scotland. That would soon make people change their minds about Scottish self-government. But I say that in a humorous sense, because I do not believe that our debates are as bad as that. In fact, I sometimes believe that we write down too much the activities and debates in the Scottish Grand Committee. In general, the standard of our debates is high. We engage very much in the fierce partisan activities of party politics, and that is good. But I do not believe that holding those debates in Edinburgh would make them any better or any worse.
On the main proposition, I would be content to arrive at a decision which would enable the members of the

Scottish Grand Committee—that is to say, Members of Parliament from Scotland—to be free to decide for themselves where they want to meet, but in Scotland.
I turn briefly to my amendment, which is to the effect that at least one of the days set aside for debates in the Scottish Grand Committee should be to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is perfectly true that a debate on the report of a Select Committee is not wholly dependent on there being a separate day set aside, either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee, for such a discussion. But it is, nevertheless, a fact that since the Scottish Select Committee was set up in this Parliament, no report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has ever been directly debated in its own right either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee.
It is true that one of the reports of which the Government took great notice was the report of the Select Committee on the levy being raised by the White Fish Authority. That report was extensively debated, not in the context of the report itself but in the context of what the Government's response would be to the White Fish Authority's decision to increase the levy. That report was very well discussed and as a result of the report and the discussion the Government changed their mind and took cognisance of the Select Committee.
Similarly—and I concede that to some extent this goes against my argument—the report of the Select Committee on inward investment was never discussed in Parliament. Nevertheless, the Government accepted a major part of the Select Committee's report, albeit the minority report as it happened at the time.
We wait with some interest to see how the Government will respond to the Select Committee's report on Civil Service job dispersal. We have pressed the Government very hard to give us an early response. So far it is not available. We can only hope that the report will be available soon. But if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is to be taken seriously—and its reports ought to be taken seriously—there should be some mechanism to ensure that they are debated. In some ways, the people who can best judge on the best report of a Session to be debated are the Select Committee members themselves.

Mr. Myles: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the other Select Committee's reports should also provide material for debate on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Hughes: Yes. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that point, because I was about to say that, although we have more Select Committees in this Parliament than we have ever had, Select Committees are not a new phenomenon. Indeed, the question of the debate of Select Committee reports was discussed by the Procedure Committee in 1978, and the Procedure Committee recommended that there should be greater opportunities for debate of Select Committee reports on the Floor of the House, that the selection of re ports for debate on the Floor of the House should not be left solely to Government or Opposition business managers and that Back Benchers should have some say in what is debated.
The Government of the day did not take up the Procedure Committee's recommendation to set aside a specific number of days for debating reports. Nevertheless, the principle remains sound. Normally, the Government of the day always have a majority on a Select


Committee. It is not as if the Government would be handing to a Select Committee a power that would rest solely in the hands of the Opposition Back Benchers. Through their Back-Bench Members, the Government of the day could still determine what should be done. The practice in all Select Committees—certainly in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—is that there is a remarkable degree of co-operation and discussion between Government Back Benchers and Opposition Back Benchers about the style of the reports and about what should be discussed. Therefore, there should be no problem about allowing the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to have an Estimates day.
Sadly, it is often only members of a Select Committee who wish to debate issues that have been discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House. That has always seemed to be a weakness, not in our rules, but in our practice. On Report, those who take part tend to be those who have discussed the Bill in Committee. However, the Report stage is meant to give those who did not serve in Committee a chance to take part in the debate. I never criticise the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but during such debates the Chair might exercise more discretion in calling those who did not serve on the Committee. If it does not do so, hon. Members will become discouraged. The same is true as regards Select Committee reports. That does not alter the principle. The amendment would at least ensure that Scottish Members—all of whom have an interest in the reports—would be able to discuss a report that is exclusively concerned with Scottish affairs.
One of a Select Committee's main weapons is the opportunity to return to an issue once the report has been published and once it has received the Secretary of State's response. The difficulty is that the Secretary of State responds to a report and its recommendations but there is no mechanism—other than within the Select Committee—whereby his response can be discussed. That is a great weakness. I tabled the amendment with the general agreement of those who served on the Committee that it should, at least, be debated. Not every hon. Member is committed to the principle, or to voting in favour of the amendment, but they believe that it should be discussed. One of the amendment's great strengths is that it would allow us to choose at least one topic that could be debated, not among ourselves—in the type of incestuous relationship suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian—but in a wider context. Those who represent Scottish constituencies should be able to debate an issue that has exercised the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs sufficiently for it to report. I hope that the Government will consider allowing that, even if we do not press the amendment to a Division.
We have had long arguments about devolution. However, hon. Members should not confuse the location of a Committee with devolution. It has nothing to do with that. We can have that debate elsewhere, at another time.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I have listened, as always, with great interest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), and I am sure that he will excuse me if I do not follow all his arguments. I agree entirely with his final key point.
I should like to refer to amendment (b) to motion No. 3, which has not been selected for debate, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and myself, if that is in order. The subject was raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that the Government were in favour of Members representing constituencies other than Scottish constituencies attending and speaking but not voting in the Scottish Grand Committee. That is not a matter of fundamental importance but I hope that, following the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), there will be an opportunity to discuss it in future.
In principle, the Scottish Grand Committee will still remain a Committee of the whole House of Commons. There might occasionally be good and sound practical reasons for someone from outside Scotland to attend a meeting to make a limited contribution from his specialist knowledge or involvement.

Mr. Henderson: If we were to discuss Scottish land tenure and its effects from a taxation point of view, does my hon. Friend envisage that we might wish to hear from the Scottish Law Officers and the English Law Officers about the comparative position north and south of the border, as well as a Treasury Minister?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the kind of occasion on which it would be useful for the Scottish Grand Committee to hear from a Member outside Scotland.
I come to the major area of our discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) has done a great service to the House by raising this question. I do not think that anyone is under the illusion that meetings in Scotland of the Scottish Grand Committee will improve the efficiency of parliamentary scrutiny. No one is suggesting that. We should be quite clear that it will not increase the opportunities for dealing with Scottish business.
The argument in favour of the proposal is that it will improve the perception of the people in Scotland about Parliament and that it will stimulate interest and make Parliament nearer to the electors. There are doubts about that argument. The number who will attend will be an infinitesimal proportion of the electorate. The key question is whether the press and the media will give better coverage to the Scottish Grand Committee meetings in Scotland. That is an open question. I could see that an initial meeting in Scotland might result in a burst of publicity, but I doubt whether it would be sustained.
If the argument is that it will improve people's perception of Parliament, Edinburgh is the last place in which to meet, because the citizens of Edinburgh have considerable experience of the machinery of government. Most of it in Scotland is in Edinburgh. I would wish to aim rather at Glasgow or Dundee.

Mr. John Maxton: Is not the experience of the Select Committee meeting in Scotland that the press and media give more coverage although it has met in Scotland on several occasions?

Mr. Stewart: One reason for that is that the Scottish Select Committee tends to take evidence from people in a locality, and that gives it a local interest. That would not necessarily apply to the Scottish Grand Committee.
The first argument against meeting in Scotland is that it is meaningless, it will not change anything and it might be misleading. While we know that this has nothing to do with devolution, people might not believe that and they might regard it as a surrogate assembly, a substitute for devolution. That would be dangerous and misleading.
There will be considerable public expense in meeting in Edinburgh and formidable practical and organisational problems, to which hon. Members have referred. When will the Committee meet? Presumably it will meet on Mondays, so that hon. Members will have to miss Question Time and statements in the House and may face problems with constituents visiting this place. I am glad that, for once, I can agree with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that the only logical answer to the organisational problems is for the Committee to meet in parliamentary recesses. There would be no clash with commitments in the House. There would be other problems—Labour Members would have to be called back from their grouse moors and their yachts in the Mediterranean; but I make the suggestion seriously. The problems that will arise if the Scottish Grand Committee meets in Edinburgh while the House is sitting would not arise, at least in theory, if the Committee met when Parliament was in recess.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that this is a debate not about devolution but about the readjustment of Scottish business in the House. But too few hon. Members have taken the opportunity to chide the Leader of the House for the fact that, when he was Opposition devolution spokesman, he specifically promised that when a Conservative Government came to office there would be all-party talks on devolution. There have been no such talks, and it is important to put that fact on the record.
I wrote to the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), on 22 November 1979 asking when the promised all-party talks would take place. The right hon. Gentleman replied on 17 January 1980 that the Government had decided "quite definitely" that any discussion on the Assembly or an Executive was ruled out on the grounds of the referendum result. That was the first clear indication that we were not to have the all-party talks.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said that the Government have dragged their feet all along the line, and that is incontestably true. They have taken an enormous time to produce a tiny proposal.
Reference has been made to the absence of the SNP, and it might be interesting if I read a letter that I have received from the Leader of the SNP. The party got 17 per cent. of the vote in Scotland at the general election and represents a significant view. Indeed, the number supporting total independence for Scotland touched 25 per cent. in recent opinion polls. Like it or not, the SNP represents a point of view which cannot be stuffed under the carpet.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) wrote:
On March 1st 1979 the Scottish people voted by 52% to 48% in favour of the Scottish Assembly … In June of that year, the Government, using its English majority of Conservative MPs, repealed the Scotland Act.

As you know, the SNP refused to participate in the 'All Party Talks' … because we regarded them as a device by which the Government could spread responsibility for the repeal of the Scotland Act.

Mr. Douglas: The SNP Members should be here to speak for themselves.

Mr. Johnston: It would be easier for me if the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of burbling on from a seated position.
The letter continued:
In the event, the proposals before us today confirm our suspicions that the talks have been an exercise in cynicism, unfortunately given additional weight by the involvement of your Party.
Since the Liberal Party apparently still believes in the right of Scots to a form of self-government I would hope that you will advise your colleagues to boycott tonight's fraudulent debate
and so on.
The Liberal view on the talks was from the beginning, as the right hon. Member for Craigton said, that we entered them on the basis that they were nothing to do with devolution. Therefore, it was reasonable to deal with the admittedly lesser question of adjusting Scottish business in the Westminster context. Indeed, to refuse to do so would have been to cut off one's nose to spite one's face; it would have made no sense.
I wish to make a few short comments on the proposals before us. First, no one that I have heard has objected to the exclusion of English Members. I am sure that no English Members present would object either.

Mr. John Wells: Hear, hear.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for an apple-growing constituency clearly agrees.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The last English Members to object would be the first Conservative Members appointed to the Scottish Grand Committee after the general election, all of whose names, by a remarkable coincidence, began with the letters A and B and who had clearly been chosen by reference to an alphabetical list.

Mr. Johnston: That is at least an objective approach.

Mr. Wells: Liberal Members have nothing to be pleased about in this A and B matter. In the old days when the London telephone directory was in two parts A-K and L-Z, they were equal. But in this House it has always been noticeable that far more Members are in the A-K section than in the L-Z section, so people called Beith and Johnston get here simply because their names were at the top of the ballot papers, not because they are people of any ability.

Mr. Johnston: To provide a reasoned response to that highly unreasonable proposition would breach order, so I do not intend to attempt it.
Secondly, the proposal that there be a minimum number of Estimates days and an increase in matter days is good, but, as I said in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Craigton, as a member of the all-party group I agreed to that proposal only on the clear condition that consideration should be given to the position of minority parties. That is mentioned in the report, in the reference to appropriate considerations.
I must repeat that I was disappointed that this year the major Opposition party made no attempt even to consult. I make no big deal of the matter. The right hon. Member is entitled to say "You have only three Members and only


8·3 per cent. of the vote" and so on, but in a democratic society the larger party has a responsibility to listen to what others say. It does not necessarily need to accept it, but it can listen and take account of it. That is important.
The place of the meeting will be on a free vote, as has been said. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is better attired than myself, is in favour of that proposition. I am not in favour of the idea of moving to Scotland. I do not see the sense of going there.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) asked a good simple question. When shall we meet in Scotland? Presumably, we shall meet on a Monday or a Friday. We would probably meet at 10.30 in Edinburgh, or some other place such as Auchtermuchty—if one of the alternative propositions is accepted. That means that one loses two and a half hours in the morning, which one requires for correspondence, and a certain amount of time in the afternoon in travelling. I normally take a sleeper from Inverness to London overnight on Sunday and I am here first thing on Monday morning. I should lose considerable time, probably five or six hours—leaving aside the time for the debate—travelling for no particular purpose.

Mr. Canavan: How did the hon. Gentleman manage when he was a Member of the European Parliament to go trekking from Inverness to Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxembourg or wherever else the Parliament was held to such an extent that he earned himself the nickname of "Brussels Johnston"?

Mr. Johnston: That did not make much sense either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] The answer is that that was far from satisfactory. I do not see any reason for compounding the problem.
It is important to remember that we are not talking about a Select Committee. One or two hon. Members have made the point that if the select Committee travels, why not the Scottish Grand Committee? They are two entirely different exercises. The Select Committee usually meets in a particular place for hearing evidence. The Grand Committee is not there for that purpose. The Grand Committee is there for the normal purposes that a Grand Committee meets. The Secretary of State would agree that it is for the purpose of hurling abuse at each other. There is no benefit in doing that in Scotland.
The question is, who decides who goes? We have heard flannel about "The Committee will decide." It boils down to the fact that the majority party at any moment in the Committee will decide. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Craigton to say "We are divided in the Labour Party in the Committee." That may be true. There is some evidence to suggest that that is true, but it should not be taken as a general line. The general line is that the majority party in the Committee will decide to go but not necessarily for objective reasons. It will decide to go because it is thought to be politically advantageous at the time.
It is sad to say that this ends as a trivial debate. It makes small proposals for adjustments to the means of debating Scottish matters. It will not make much difference whether we pass the proposals or reject them. They ignore the real demand in Scotland that has been established for genuine change.
Is this the Government's last proposal? Do they not intend to do any more about devolution during their period in office? Speaking as a Liberal, I remain convinced that the federal solution for Scotland is the right decision.

Mr. John Wells: As an Englishman, whose mother is now aged over 90 and who has lived in Scotland for most of her life, may I say that I had all my life been extremely proud of being half Scots until I came to the House, when I became appalled with 50 per cent. of my compatriots. The Scots Members kept us here in the old days night after night while they whined and whinged and snivelled and grumbled, pathetic whingeing, snivelling creatures that they were, and I ceased to be proud of being 50 per cent. a Scotsman and became very ashamed of the little bit of myself.
However, tonight I am enjoying the debate so far as it has gone. I must say that I found the Liberal contribution quite extraordinary. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) did not know whether he wanted to go or not. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was wise to remind him that the European Parliament, which is a retrograde and absurd body, does not know whether it is meeting here, there or somewhere else. It carts trunkloads and lorryloads and trainloads of paper around with it.
Some hon. Members of the Opposition would like the Scottish Grand Committee to chunter round from Auchtermuchty to Edinburgh to Westminster and, for all I know, to Inverness. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be within your recollection that what you and I would call the Westminster Parliament met in Acton Burnell or one of the Actons in Shropshire, round about 1380, and it was none the worse for that. If we could find a nice big church in a pleasant rural spot, we could meet there and think a bit.
The problem with the people here is that, like the hon. Member for Inverness, we are bogged down in bumf. The hon. Gentleman was whingeing about his correspondence. If he was travelling from 10.30 am—I cannot remember whether his journey began or ended at 10.30—he lost six hours in travel between Auchtermuchty and Edinburgh. That was his trouble. He did not know whether he was coming or going. Well, we all know that the Liberal Party does not know whether it is coming or going.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wells: No. The hon. Gentleman roused me when I was perfectly quiet and placid. I brought into the Chamber this evening some very good stuff, and I should be glad to regale the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches with it for whatever is left of our three hours. I came to the Chamber quite ready to do that, so hon. Members who have not yet spoken may as well go home.

Mr. Canavan: Is it the Bible or Burns?

Mr. Wells: It is not the Bible. It is the "Encyclopaedia Scotia". It is good stuff, but it is against the rules of order to read, so I will not read, but I have it with me just in case I begin to run a little thin.
We were dealing with the travelling problems of the hon. Member for Inverness and others in the European Parliament. The whole idea tonight is bogged down with


excesses of travelling or not travelling. The hon. Gentleman was right for once when he said that it would, of course, be the majority party that would decide where the Grand Committee met.
Many hon. Members will recall a dear hon. Friend of mine, the late Jackie Watts, who was added to the Scottish Grand Committee and thought that this was the most damned boring thing that had ever happened to him. I was also an added Member. I was very young and very foolish. I had not learnt how to avoid this sort of thing. Jackie, who was older and wiser, did learn. I recall a debate on mental health in Scotland. The part of Scotland with which I am familiar contains the Crichton institution, probably the finest mental hospital in the world. Jackie was not prepared to put up with being an added Member of the Committee. He spoke against the Government and voted against the Government. The handsome people in the Whip's Office quickly removed him as an added Member.
The system of added Members has never been satisfactory. Like the hon. Member for Inverness they can do their correspondence in Committee or outside the Committee. Or, like most Liberal Members appointed to Committees, they need not attend at all.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Rubbish.

Mr. Wells: If the hon. Member who says "Rubbish" from a sedentary position collects from the Vote Office details of those hon. Members who attend Select Committees and Standing Committees throughout the year he will find that the attendance record of his party is appalling.

Mr. Beith: It is excellent.

Mr. Wells: Furthermore—

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to establish the relevance to a debate on the handling of Scottish business of exchanges between the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about attendance at Select Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If the relevance does not emerge fairly soon, I shall inquire into the matter.

Mr. Wells: It was simply a matter discussed in passing. I shall finish this point before coming to my main theme. The Liberal Party has a bad attendance record in Committees—

Mr. Beith: That is not true.

Mr. Wells: —with hon. Members occasionally wandering into a Committee to vote before wandering away again. I have served the House for many years as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. One sits impartially, enthralled—[Interruption]. I will not have that. To be serious for once, I am devoted to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire, but I will not have the Chairmen's Panel laughed at. I ask him to withdraw his laughter. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is intolerable that the hon. Gentleman who, politics apart, is a good friend of mine, should laugh. The hon. Gentleman can laugh at almost anything except that. Will he please withdraw? What a night this is. I have served the House for many years in this capacity. The only Committee I have served once and once only is the Scottish Grand Committee. It

was many years ago. I recollect saying that the proceedings were somewhat out of order and that I stopped someone, although I cannot remember the hon. Member—

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an English cabaret turn to monopolise what should be a serious debate on the future conduct of Scottish business in the House? I am coming to the view that the Scottish National Party Members, who have boycotted the debate, were right to do so if we are to be mistreated by the kind of rubbish that we have heard from the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite confident that the hon. Gentleman will quickly return to one of the amendments.

Mr. Wells: I was perfectly peaceful and quiet until I was provoked into speaking. I have not really begun yet. Let me now begin.
We should start at the time of the Act of Union, if not, perhaps, during the Cromwellian period, because that was the last time that Scotland had a Parliament of its own, and the validity of Scottish parliamentary institutions can be judged only during the Cromwellian period. At the time of the Act of Union there were 16 peers and 45 Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies. Those 45 Members were split into 30 for the counties and 15 for the boroughs. The upsurge in Scottish membership of this House has gone from strength to strength. In 1707, there were 45 Scottish Members. By the Reform Act 1832—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman assist me by saying to which of the amendments he is addressing his remarks?

Mr. Wells: I think that I am correct in saying that we are debating the whole lot together. That covers the entire gambit of Scottish representation in this House. Scottish Members have become more numerous over the years. At present, there are 71. At the peak of their ascendency in 1885, there were 72.
The population of Scotland has grown since the Act of Union from 1 million to 6 million, whereas the population of the rest of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is really intolerable. What the hon. Gentleman is saying has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. We must come back to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make one more appeal to the hon. Gentleman to return to one of the amendments?

Mr. Wells: I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) finds it intolerable, because that is precisely what English Members suffer night after night.

Mr. Canavan: Then why does the hon. Member not go home?

Mr. Wells: I am dealing with a serious point. I have been much provoked by hon. Members, which is exactly what they have been doing to us down the years. It will do them no harm to be provoked once in a while.
The fact remains that Scotland is greatly over-represented, and should be less represented in the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), because he has demonstrated just what Parliament is not about. If I address my remarks to the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland/Edinburgh, it will be to say what, in my view, Parliament ought to be about. Parliament makes decisions. That is part of parliamentary responsibility and part of its functions.
I do not want to cross swords with hon. Members who say that the proposals do not emanate from a considered review of devolution. What has happened to the Scottish Grand Committee has been a response to the recognition that there has been a substantial amount of administrative and executive devolution to Scotland. What is missing is a forum in Scotland legislatively to link those functions and, perhaps more important, to link Scotland to the Government of the day, of whatever party colour, so that they can defend their policy and record in Scotland.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is useful, but it does not supply a forum for the Government to defend their policy and record. As parliamentarians, we are absorbed with what Parliament does for us and how we perform in relation to parliamentary institutions. Parliament is not only for us but for the people. They have a right to see their representatives criticising the Government. They also have a right to see how the Government defend their policy under scrutiny. Some have suggested that the Scottish Grand Committee could become a glorified talking shop. That might be disparaging to the Committee, but it is none the worse for that. That is what Parliament is about. It is about individual Members of Parliament examining the Government's record and asking them to defend it.
I am not overcome by the view that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet in Edinburgh. If it moved around Scotland, it would find, as did the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, that it eventually reached a view on where it should sit. The natural place would be Edinburgh. I am willing to consider the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I shall not argue about meeting in Edinburgh. Within a short time, he would come round to the view that the Committee should meet there.
We should move slowly and cautiously. I do not charge the Government with not running forward with the proposals, except to say that we have lost the benefit of the Estimates and matters days because of the delay from August 1980. It behoves us to ask the Government, as did the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), whether this is the last word on the devolutionary argument for the period that the Government are in office. We have a right to know that. Or will the Government propose that there should be further all-party talks or a Speaker's Conference to consider devolution as a whole? It is a matter that will not go away. If we move towards meeting in Edinburgh, we will give new focus and attention to that issue. Things have a habit of not turning out as one expects. Nevertheless, the Government have a responsibility to try to anticipate some of the responses if we move to the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland or in Edinburgh in particular.
I shall address myself to some of the difficulties, which arise in the main because we have a plethora of legislation

at Westminster. We cannot consider the improvement of the government of Scotland outwith the improvement of the operations of the House. To deal with that would be to strain the bounds of order, but we have had an example. There are those who talk about the inconvenience of travelling. There is nothing more inconvenient than discussing a grave matter such as this at a quarter past one in the morning. If some hon. Members are talking about the difficulties of travelling, we have to take cognisance of the fact that we are over-inclined to regard Parliament—I think wrongly—as a legislative sausage machine. That applies to Governments of all parties. I am not charging this Government especially.
If, as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) suggests, we get an experimental period, or we make it more fixed as some of my hon. Friends suggest, we shall be able to move away a little from legislation to using the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland as a forum for the examination of our affairs.
Under the Scotland Act 1978—I use this as an example—we could move to a more devolutionary status without necessarily embracing further enactments. I make that comment with a view to examining the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Northern Ireland has a Comptroller and Auditor-General of its own but not a parliament at present. Scotland, with all the administrative devolution and executive devolution, does not have its own Comptroller and Auditor General. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee for some years, I recognise that the value of the PAC relates to having an officer with a staff who can scrutinise the Government's accounting and other aspects of their expenditure in terms of value for money and efficiency auditing.
If we are to move to Edinburgh and undertake a closer examination of the Government's activities, the Government should consider in the longer term, but perhaps over not too long a term, having recourse to a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. That would greatly assist the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and our debates and greatly assist the scrutiny of the Government's actions in Scotland. If, as I hope, we take a decision this morning to get the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland, I see it not assisting legislation but assisting what we all should be arguing for—the openness of government in this democratic age.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), who has departed from the Chamber, said that if one's name begins with A or B one is likely to be in the majority in the House. That is probably why, with my name beginning with W, I seem to be at the tail end of the queue when it comes to being called to participate in debates. I was at the foot of the ballot paper but I came out top of the poll. Perhaps that does not really reflect what my hon. Friend meant.
The speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) was thoughtful and constructive. It contributed to the debate. It is sad that sometimes we deviate from the serious aspects of our debates. This is brought about in part by interjections that are meant to be humorous but which result in farce.
We must recognise in the House and in Scotland that there is a real demand that some Scottish parliamentary business should be conducted in Scotland. I would not


wish that in any way to be confused with the wide variety of devolution proposals, including the rejected Scotland Act. Nor is that a substitute for any federalism or devolution as proposed by the Labour Party. We are considering a better way of organising the parliamentary business which we conduct in this unitary parliament. I would not wish to be party to anything that would put at risk the unitary parliament because the risk to Scotland would be far too great for us to move along that path.
However, I do not believe that it is too much to ask our Scottish Grand Committee to hold sittings in Scotland. I believe that they should be in Edinburgh. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline that, in the end, one would probably finish up in one place. I believe that a case could be made for Perth, but it is likely that one would end up in Edinburgh.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) was right to suggest that we should have an experimental period. It is important that we should test the water and see how successful the plan is. We should not charge along this path too hurriedly. I trust that the House will bear in mind that the major reason given for not holding sittings in Edinburgh is that they would create problems for the management of parliamentary business and practical problems for individual Members of Parliament.
The House should never be deterred by that as the only reason. We should not be deterred from making decisions because they would create management problems. Otherwise, we would make few decisions in the House. Equally, we should not be deterred because there would be problems for hon. Members. I remind hon. Members that in Scotland we already face considerable problems individually and collectively. For example, the holidays of the House rarely coincide with the holidays of our children in Scotland. That creates enormous problems. I also remind hon. Members that frequently we are required to travel back and forth to Scotland at great inconvenience, often caused by transport difficulties. We have to do that on a regular basis.
We must also recognise that as Members of Parliament we are faced with having to make concessions in our domestic lives, private lives and any business lives we have. Therefore, we already face enormous pressures of time. There is much to be said for looking seriously at the way in which the House manages its business at present and for reducing the volume of legislation that goes through the House. That is true of all parties in Government.
I should like to think that we could somehow try out the experiment to see how it works. I recognise that there will be a conflict of interests. I am sure that hon. Members already find that. How many of us find that we are on a Committee when we want to be in a debate that is of particular constituency interest or of interest to us as individual Members because it concerns an aspect of parliamentary and other business in which we probably have first-hand experience and, therefore, could make a valuable contribution? That happens day in and day out. Therefore, we already face that conflict of interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) did not want to speak in the debate and I did, yet he was called before I was. He said that what was important was not where the debate took place, but the quality of the debate. That is correct. For that reason, the people of Scotland should be given an opportunity to test the quality of our

debate and to hear their own Members of Parliament speaking on topics in Scotland which are important to Scotland. They then could pass judgment on the quality of the contributions. Conservative Members would have little to fear if that happened. Indeed, we should have much to gain conducting our debates in Scotland. Judgment could then be made on the quality rather than the quantity of representation about which we hear so much. That is one reason why I believe that we should do something constructive along these lines.
I therefore hope that the House will decide that we should meet in Scotland. I am prepared to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus and also, if it is called, that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) because I believe that this would make a positive and meaningful contribution to the good government of Scotland.

Mr. George Foulkes: ; I must admit that the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) was a model of clarity, lucidity , common sense and constructiveness in a most unsatisfactory debate.
The debate has been unsatisfactory because, like most Scottish debates, it has been taken at a ridiculous hour. The Leader of the House introduced it in a languid mariner without any concern for the real issues. He laid before us in a technical way the terms of the motions that we all know, giving no sense of understanding of the issues involved.
The debate has also been unsatisfactory because some have treated it as a cabaret—I refer not just to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) but to others—with interpolations about people attending the Scottish fiddlers' rally. Moreover, despite Conservative protestations about there being a free vote, we have seen large numbers of the payroll vote hovering around. I shall be very surprised if they do not do the bidding of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
As I said in a rather heated intervention—I apologise if it was too heated—I now understand the feelings of the Scottish National Party Members. That is not to say that I agree with their reasoning. I have sat through every minute of the debate. I have not left the Chamber at all. Nevertheless, I understand the action of SNP Members in not attending when an important matter for Scotland is treated with such levity and lack of concern by some hon. Members.

Mr. Peter Fraser: No.

Mr. Foulkes: Some hon. Members treated the debate seriously. There were also some genuinely witty and thoroughly commendable speeches referring to the sensible topics before us, and I joined in the laughter.
Like my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I feel strongly that this is no substitute for devolution. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not think that whatever we decide today will strengthen or weaken the arguments for devolution. He seems to feel that if we agree that the Scottish Grand Committee should go to Scotland, whether to Edinburgh or elsewhere, that would weaken the argument. I believe that it would make no difference whatever. The arguments for democratic control over the Executive in Scotland and


for separate and more detailed consideration of our separate legal structure, the argument that our Scottish legislation is always dealt with as a kind of fag end of United Kingdom legislation and the argument for getting away from the system of edicts from the Scottish Office by written answer because no time can be found on the Floor of the House, will remain as strong as ever.

Mr. Henderson: We had 20 hours on Scottish business last week.

Mr. Foulkes: I am concerned at the delay in considering this matter. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for it even to come forward for debate on the Floor of the House. There was delay in meetings taking place and delay in tabling the motions. The Leader of the House knows that I was on my feet Thursday after Thursday asking him when we could have this debate. It has taken a gestation period of two years—and what has been produced in that time? There has been nothing substantial. In fact, a mouse has been produced. What is suggested is merely that there should be some marginal increase in Estimates and matter days and that the debates should take place in Committee, with a lack of interest on the part of the general public and the media and often also by Scottish Members. I am equally concerned that there are a number of Scottish Members on each side of the House who have not seen fit to stay for the debate and vote today. That should be a matter of concern to all of us and to their constituents in Scotland.
I contest what has been said by some Conservative Members. I contend that there would be much greater public and media interest in the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and others made some valid points. We are not talking about something like the Scottish Select Committee. Some of us did a television programme of a mock Select Committee. The people I spoke to about it said that it was extremely boring. Select Committees do valuable work, but by the very nature of their operations they tend to be boring. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North said, however, in the Scottish Grand Committee there is the cut and thrust of political argument and it is much more exciting. It would be covered by the media, it would be covered by the radio and with some luck it might be used as an experiment for television coverage as well.
I do not accept the arguments about the logistics of having meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland. In an excellent intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) pointed out that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) was able to make frequent trips to Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere and manage the logistics involved. It would be much easier for him to attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh or in other parts of Scotland.
I am conscious of the fact that time is limited. It is limited because the hon. Member for Maidstone abused the privilege of the House in his interventions. I shall, therefore, have to omit some of the other things that I intended to say. I hope that we shall be able to support all the amendments that have been selected, because they are not mutually exclusive. I hope that they will all be called and that they will all be voted on. I should like to see a

change in the way in which Scottish business is conducted in the House, because during my two years it has been most unsatisfactory. I know many other hon. Members, particularly new ones, who agree that the Scottish business of the House is treated in a derisory way and does not get the attention that the business of Scotland merits.

Mr. Millan: I should like to intervene briefly before the Secretary of State winds up in order to add a little to what I said earlier about meeting in Edinburgh, and to modify slightly what I said—not in substance, but on the practicalities of what we are doing in the matter of votes this evening.
I hope that the House will vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), because it is an enabling amendment and gives us the opportunity to consider the question and decide to meet in Scotland. It does not decide the matter conclusively one way or the other but without it the matter of meeting in Scotland really falls. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will be carried.
I said earlier that if the amendment were to be carried I would want the decision about the meetings to be taken by the Scottish Grand Committee. I pointed out that amendments (c) and (d) to motion No. 3 which were specifically directed towards letting the Scottish Grand Committee make that decision, had not been selected. I was not unduly worried about that, because I felt that we could decide the matter on the amendments to motions Nos. 4 and 5 tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). I did not think that there was a gap. However, after further consultation and consideration I see that there is a gap.
The amendments to motions Nos. 4 and 5 deal with motions to sit in Edinburgh or Scotland respectively that are taken in the House and not in the Scottish Grand Committee. There is a gap, because the amendments to motion No. 3 that would have provided the full procedure—the decision in principle—in the Scottish Grand Committee have not been selected. Therefore, the amendments to motions Nos. 4 and 5 do not, by themselves, do what hon. Members wish.
I assume that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Angus will be carried. Indeed, I hope that it will be. If it is, further consideration will have to be given to the mechanics of taking a decision in the first place, and of how to get that decision agreed by the House. That must be done in a way—I do not wish to offend any hon. Member—that does not involve another debate such as this one. The matter could be decided forthwith.
I hope that the Secretary of State will say that if the hon. Gentleman's amendment is accepted there will be further discussions to see how the voices of Scottish Members can be collected in order to ensure that they are in favour of meetings taking place in Edinburgh, and in Scotland generally. If the majority of Scottish Members—regardless of party affiliations—are in favour of that, appropriate motions could, after consultation, be placed on the Order Paper to make the provision work. However, we do not have the complete set of motions that would enable us to do that. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment is accepted and if the Secretary of State gives the undertaking that I hope for, I shall not advise my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian and for


Maryhill to press their amendments to a Division. I should then rest on the basis that after further discussion the Government will bring forward motions to make the hon. Gentleman's amendment effective.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give such an undertaking. Indeed, I intervened only to ask him to do so.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I thank the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) both for his assistance and courtesy in carrying out the inter-party talks and for his general welcome to the suggestions and motions put forward.
Given that little has been said and that what has been said has been favourable, we can take it that there is general agreement about the main thread of the decisions taken at the inter-party talks. There seems to be general agreement about the demise—if that is the right word—of the added Members. At present, they do not serve any useful purpose. In addition, there was general agreement about the corresponding change in the quorum.
The right hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point. If amendment (a) to motion No. 2 were carried, we would be committed to an experiment of the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. That is a vague term; it does not define how much of an experiment it would be or how and when it would be done. My right hon. Friend and I envisage that the mechanics of such a complicated matter would have to be worked out once the general will of the House had been established.
If the will of the House were to be that we should conduct such an experiment, I assure the right hon. Member for Craigton that our intention is that the form of the experiment and the times, dates and frequency of sittings in Edinburgh would be arrived at by agreement between all the parties. Therefore, we shall consult through the usual channels with all the parties represented in Scotland to find the most convenient method for Scottish Members. Having established that, we would put down the necessary motions in the Government's name, having agreed the substance of them through the usual channels.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) has given us the opportunity to test the feeling of the House about the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland. In view of the highly regrettable complications that have arisen over the selection of amendments, do I take it that the Secretary of State accepts that support has been given to the suggestion that in the longer term those meetings might not necessarily be confined to Edinburgh?

Mr. Younger: Yes; I was just about to mention that.
If the experiment took place and it was the general wish that it should be converted to a more permanent arrangement, I give an assurance to the right hon. Member for Craigton that if that were the wish of the House—it would require a further decision—we should wish to enter discussions with him and the usual channels on the best method of making those arrangements and securing agreement on the form of the permanent arrangement.
The right hon. Member for Craigton will appreciate that, even with a permanent arrangement, as with all other matters in the House, the Government of the day would still retain ultimate control of the business of the House by tabling the necessary motion. Our intention would be to

discuss through the usual channels how this could be done and how the views of Scottish Members could be established.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked whether the meetings would be in Edinburgh or in Scotland generally. My view and that of my right hon. Friend is that there is no reason to be tied always to sitting in Edinburgh if Scottish Members generally decide that they wished to sit elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) said that he did not feel absolutely tied to Edinburgh, and I take the spirit of the views expressed in the debate to be that we should not be tied irrevocably to Edinburgh. That is my view, too. I qualify that slightly by saying that there is a great difference in the ease with which the Scottish Grand Committee can flit about Scotland in comparison with the Select Committee. I am not saying it is impossible, but we may find that it is not so easy. I, too, think that there could be an occasion when we would wish to sit in Glasgow or elsewhere in Scotland if that was suitable and appropriate.
The speed of proceeding has been criticised by some and mentioned by others. It may have been too slow for some hon. Members, but we should not rush into this matter too quickly. It involves a change in the customs of the House and it will be thought out carefully.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) and others mentioned the choice of subjects by Opposition parties. I assure them that the system should be reasonably satisfactory to all parties. The Estimates days will still be chosen by the Opposition. The official Opposition have the right to choose the subjects for debate. In the past, official Oppositions have offered one of the days to a minority party. The Conservatives when in Opposition gave one day to the Liberal Party and another to the SNP. That will continue under the new arrangements.
I have always thought of matter days as being by agreement, although the Government usually propose the subject for debate. I do not recall an Opposition refusing to debate a topic, but that could happen. I shall be glad to bear in mind the views of the smaller Opposition parties in considering the question of matter days.
In general, the other decisions of the all-party talks have been welcomed. I accept that they are not an answer to the problem of devolution; they were never intended to be. Devolution has been debated over many years and was the subject of a referendum, which, whatever else it did, did not produce an overwhelming majority for the measure then before us.
The SNP Members have been right not to take part in the inter-party talks. They are not interested in improving the government of Scotland under the present system. They do not wish Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom. They have been ambivalent in the past, and I am glad that their attitude is now clearly laid on the table. Their absence from the debate makes it clear that they have no further interest in devolution—because that means devolution within the United Kingdom—or in improvements in our procedures. That is logical for them and is an improvement on some of their other decisions.
I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was giving the SNP a bonus by joining in tonight. The tenor of his arguments tied in with his wish that Scotland should have a separate Government. That is the only implication that can be drawn from his suggestion that only Scottish Members should take Scottish decisions. If the hon.


Gentleman wishes to join the SNP, he should do so. I wonder whether he is following in the footsteps of Mr. Jim Sillars, who made similar remarks in the House for many years. We could never understand why he did not join the SNP. He has now done so, and perhaps the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian will be the next to do so. I should regret it if he were.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has become confused at this late hour. What I want to achieve, and what the Labour Party in Scotland wants to achieve, is a devolved Scottish Assembly. I fully accept that what we are talking about has nothing to do with devolution. I am glad that everyone present appreciates that.

Mr. Younger: What the hon. Gentleman has just said will be a great disappointment to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who may have been expecting to gain another recruit. I note that he has not got one, and I am not sorry about that.

Mr. George Robertson: The Leader of the House suggested that the Government were neutral. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that? Those of us who have sat through the debate have watched with great interest coming into the Chamber, among others, Ministers from the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Industry, the Solicitor-General and the whole ministerial team from the Department of Energy. It surely can be no coincidence that the payroll vote has flooded in. How neutral will the Government be in the Divisions?

Mr. Younger: I have not had the benefit that the hon. Gentleman has had of going round the corridors to count who is in the House. I am not sure where his right hon. and hon. Friends are. If they have a real interest in Scottish affairs, they should be here, too, ready to vote as they feel it right to vote. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, all my right hon. and hon. Friends who are present tonight are free to vote in any way they wish. That is clear, and it is how I think it should be done.
One of the most important aspects of the background to the decisions that we take today and to our discussions is that any major changes in how we conduct our business, or the way in which the government of Britain or Scotland is considered, should always be approached on the basis of the maximum inter-party agreement. The mistake that we have made in many of these matters over the past 10 years is to fail to take that approach.
The motions result from at least inter-party talks. Some may say that they were on a narrow basis, but they were inter-party talks to try to achieve a basis of agreement across the House on what should be done.
I hope that the House will take careful decisions on each aspect and that those who have listened to the debate have found it useful in helping them to make up their minds on how to vote.

Amendment made: (a), at end add
'and considers it desirable that the Scottish Grand Committee should for an experimental period be enabled to hold sittings in Edinburgh from time to time.'.—[Mr. Peter Fraser.]

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Report of an Inter-Party Group on the Government of Scotland and considers it desirable that the Scottish Grand Committee should for an experimental period be enabled to hold sittings in Edinburgh from time to time.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motions, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions relating to Scottish Grand Committee, Scottish Estimates, Matters relating exclusively to Scotland and Procedure in Standing Committees.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, from the begining of next Session, Standing Order No. 68 (Scottish Grand Committee) be amended, in line 20, by leaving out from 'constituencies' to the end of the paragraph and adding 'of whom a quorum shall be ten.'.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Amendment proposed: (a), leave out
'from the beginning of next Session'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 112.

Division No. 224]
[1.45 am


AYES


Alton, David
McElhone, Frank


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Buchan, Norman
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Carmichael, Neil
O'Neill, Martin


Cook, Robin F.
Penhaligon, David


Craigen, J. M.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cryer, Bob
Robertson, George


Dalyell, Tam
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Douglas, Dick
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Ewing, Harry
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Strang, Gavin


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Straw, Jack


Haynes, Frank
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Home Robertson, John



Howell, Rt Hon D.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mr. James Tinn




NOES


Alison, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Blackburn, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dover, Denshore
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael






Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stanley, John


Major, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald


Monro, Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Neubert, Michael
Watson, John


Newton, Tony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wiggin, Jerry


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wolfson, Mark


Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Percival, Sir Ian
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Raison, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Mr. Robert Boscawen

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 70 (Scottish estimates) be amended, in line 7, by leaving out 'more' and inserting 'less'.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House—[Mr. Pym.]

MATTERS RELATING EXCLUSIVELY TO SCOTLAND

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 71 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland) be amended, in line 15, by leaving out 'two' and inserting 'six'.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Pym.]

PROCEDURE IN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,
That, from the beginning of next Session, Standing Order No. 65 (Procedure in Standing Committees) be amended, in line 1, by inserting at the beginning 'Except as provided in Standing Order No. 68 (Scottish Grand Committee)'.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Animals (Experiments)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Miss Joan Lestor: We are, it is alleged, a nation of animal lovers. That is beyond dispute. Many people who recently took a number of things, such as cosmetics, for granted have been horrified by the disclosures of the way in which animals are used in medical experiments and the mounting evidence that many of the experiments are not necessary or not as valid as claimed in the past. A recently formed organisation called FRAME—the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, is supported by a growing number of hon. Members and people outside the House. It has among its sponsors and supporters many people who are eminent in science and medical research.
This is an important fact. People working in the field, with knowledge of these matters, are questioning what has been accepted often as a necessary evil. They should be heard. Their comments and allegations should be considered.
There has always been controversy in this country over the use of animals in laboratory testing. Some have regarded the testing as a necessary evil. Others have felt deeply that it should take place only when absolutely necessary. The main question I would like to raise is the extent to which the Government, the MRC and other organisations are examining the possibility of alternative methods of testing in relation to medical, cosmetic and other matters for which animals are used.
It is true, I believe, that there is growing concern about the disclosure of what appears to be unnecessary cruelty. Questions have arisen about the past accuracy and claims of accuracy of many of the tests that have been employed. Hon. Members will recall the claims that thalidomide was well tested. I have no need to remind the House of the tragedies that ensued.
Controversial views have been expressed about the effect of penicillin on animals—although not applicable to human beings—despite claims that it has been thoroughly tested. More controversy and argument has occurred over alcohol in relation to rats and the fact that comparisons with rats have not always proved valid to human beings.
The organisation to which I have referred outlines some of the growing evidence that feasible non-animal methods of testing substances now exist. Despite the fact that reliable bacterial testing for predicting chemicals that have a causal relationship with cancer were developed early in the 1970s, it is only now that it is being introduced as a preliminary test in laboratories. I and many people who support this investigation and who doubt some of the claims about the necessity of using animals in medical research want to know the Government's position in assisting institutions to do research into replacement of animals in this science.
The Medical Research Council has said on many occasions that alternatives to animal testing arise automatically or naturally in its general research programmes. Yet there is heavy emphasis in the MRC's research—which has changed little over the years—on large animal projects, which are not designed to produce alternatives, but continue as in the past.
Other countries seem to view the matter more seriously and more scientifically than we do. For example, the United States has established a centre for alternative methods of research with regard to animals. Much of the experimentation that recently hit the headlines, and that shocked and surprised many people, has been in cosmetics. Although it is true that many cosmetic firms no longer use the methods that horrifed people in this country, and were not using all of them at the time when many of the disclosures were made, some of them still do. While on the subject of research alternatives in the United States, I must point out that the firm of Revlon has contributed substantially to alternative methods of research in the hope of finding other ways of testing its cosmetics.
Many people in this country and abroad were shocked at the experiments carried out on rabbits in relation to shampoo—the blinding tests on rabbits' eyes, or on the back of the head to discover the irritant effects of new types of shampoos.
It would be foolish of me simply to say that there should be no experiments on animals. That would not be reasonable, nor could we expect such a proposal to be accepted. But the case of the rabbits, and other examples where there are alternatives, should be taken on board by the Government. In 1971, two American scientists questioned the experiments on rabbits. Those scientists, covering 24 major cosmetic and other industrial testing laboratories, established that the tests on the rabbits were unreliable and often unnecessary. Yet tests continue in this country.
FRAME has established a toxicity committee which looks into alternative methods. It has the support of many people inside and outside the House. The concept that there is no other way in which drugs and substances such as cosmetics and medicines can be released on the market unless they have been tested on animals is rapidly losing support. In certain areas, some of which I have mentioned, there are undoubtedly alternative methods.
This country seems to lag behind others, which have given greater attention to the matter. We do not seem to concern ourselves with the funding or the serious search for alternative methods. Much secrecy surrounds many of the tests that take place, as we all know, and it is often difficult to get accurate descriptions of the way in which the tests are carried out. That is why many people, when there have been disclosures, have been shocked and horrified at the way in which the tests take place and at the cruelty, the agony and the pain which many animals suffer.
If it is possible for many of the experiments concerning the testing of materials to take place in an alternative way, I believe that a humane society in a country such as Britain, which claims to care for animals, to feel deeply about cruelty to animals and is rightly quick to condemn and accuse others who do not conform to our attitude, should do all that is possible to find humane alternatives. That is what FRAME is arguing. The MRC is slow to take up some of the challenges and start to develop alternatives.
The hour is late—or early, depending on which way one looks at the matter—and I know that the Minister has a great deal of the material put forward by FRAME and others. I shall not go into any great detail tonight. I want the Minister to deal with alternatives and with what the

Government are doing. I hope that at some time in the future, when we gain further support and interest, the House will have a large-scale debate.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison: The Government are fully aware of the strength of public feeling, clearly conveyed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), that animals should not be subjected to any unnecessary suffering. The use of animals in experiments is an especially emotive subject. It has been the subject of intense debate and controversy for well over a century, from the time before the enactment of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, by which such experiments are controlled at present. In recent years, public and parliamentary concern and interest in the subject have increased. It is not surprising, therefore, that recent years have also seen a considerable and increasing interest in many quarters in the possibility of getting by other means the information that we now obtain from animal experimentation. I well understand the hon. Lady's concern that we should go down that path.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that the Government welcome this constructive approach and fully support the view that alternatives to living animals should be used wherever practicable. Let there be no doubt about that. At the same time, for the reasons that I shall explain, it is necessary to dispel any misconception that there may be about the extent to which animals can be replaced, either now or in the foreseeable future. It is a regrettable but unavoidable fact that many kinds of biomedical research will require the use of animals for some time to come. It should not be assumed that alternatives to the use of animals exist in every case, nor should it be assumed that all that is needed to find and develop such alternatives is the provision of Government funds.
The use of animals in experiments is criticised on a number of grounds. There are those who consider that no experiments on animals can be justified and that it is as morally and ethically wrong to expose animals to risk as it would be to experiment on human beings. We respect the sincerity of those who hold such views, but we do not accept the conclusions. We believe that it is right to allow experiments on animals to continue, subject to proper controls and safeguards, in view of the benefits that can be derived for man and animal. Another criticism is that, while experiments for medical purposes may be justified, the use of animals for frivolous experiments should cease. The example often cited is the use of animals to test cosmetics to which the hon. Lady referred.
Attention is often drawn to the fact that some major manufacturers of cosmetics do not carry out tests on animals. It is also suggested that there are already sufficient cosmetics on the market, so that the testing of new products should not be allowed. It is true that many ingredients and formulations have already been tested on animals and that is one reason why some manufacturers do not find it necessary to test their ingredients. However, it must not be forgotten that in the light of new knowledge the need may arise at any time to retest existing products or ingredients as well as those involving new formulations. A move to prohibit the testing of new products would have wide implications as regards manufacture, trade and consumer choice, to say nothing of the real difficulties in distinguishing exclusively decorative products from those with a protective or other therapeutic function.
A further criticism often levelled against animal experimentation is that the results are meaningless. It is said that variations between species mean that results obtained from the use of animals cannot be extrapolated to apply to human beings. It is true that there are considerable variations between species. There are also many similarities which enable comparisons to be correctly drawn. The art of the experimenter is to know the extent to which conclusions drawn from his experiments on animals are valid in respect of man.
An example often quoted by such critics of animal experiments is the thalidomide tragedy, but the reason that animal experiments did not then reveal the terrible consequences which the drug had if taken by the pregnant mother was that the traditional methods of toxicity testing did not use pregnant animals. Species variation was not the relevant factor. If thalidomide had been tested on non-pregnant women, its teratogenic effects would not have been discovered. Teratogenicity requires a different kind of testing from other kinds of toxicity. Manufacturers of drugs are now required to supply information on the effects on the foetuses of pregnant animals in at least two species.
I have spoken about alternatives to the use of living animals. The word "alternative" in this context is a form of shorthand, since there is an impressive range of such alternatives. Cell culture, tissue culture, organ culture, computer analogues, mathematical models and immune assays are only some of the methods and techniques involved. In its widest sense, the term "alternative" embraces all methods which replace the use of animals entirely, which enable fewer animals or animals of a lower species to be used or which require less use of conscious living animals. For example, the use of dummies, mathematical models, or computer analogues does not involve animals at all.
Methods such as cell or organ culture avoid the pain or distress which may be associated with the use of whole living animals, although it should be remembered that such methods do not necessarily reduce the number of animals used. Cell cultures are capable of being maintained for months or even years and donor animals are not required after the initial culture has been started. By contrast, organ cultures last only a short time so that a continuous source of donor animals may be required.
Russell and Birch in their book "Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques" published in 1959, provided a useful classification of the various alternatives available. They classified them under "the three Rs" which stood for replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement meant the substitution of insentient material for conscious living higher animals. Reduction meant reduction in the numbers of animals used to obtain information in a given case. Refinement meant any decrease in the incidence or severity of procedures performed on those animals which still have to be used.
As I have said, we support the use of any of these alternatives, whenever their use is practicable. It may be helpful, however, if I clarify a possible area of misunderstanding about the Home Secretary's powers under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. This is the Act under which experiments on living animals which may cause pain are controlled at present.
The Act lays down the purposes for which experiments may be proposed. Provided that the proposed experiments satisfy the Act's criteria of purpose, the Home Secretary has no power to determine the need for any experiment,

and it follows that he has no statutory power to refuse to license experiments on the ground that alternative methods are available. In any event, the exercise of such a judgment would, to say the least, be extremely difficult in view of conflicting scientific opinion likely to be encountered on any given issue.
This conclusion is reflected in the draft Council of Europe convention on animal experiments which has been prepared at Strasbourg by the ad hoc committee of experts on the protection of animals. Provision is made in the draft for the question of alternatives to be a central consideration in the experimenter's intention, but not in such a way as to require the licensing authority to make judgments on the use of alternatives.
In spite of these practical limitations, the Government regularly bring to the attention of all those carrying out experiments under the 1876 Act the importance of taking every reasonable step, including consultation with their colleagues and a study of available scientific literature, to confirm before using living animals that their investigations cannot be effectively carried out by any alternative means. Licensees are also urged to give thought to the possibilities of developing new alternatives to the use of living animals and to publish information about successful new methods, so that other licensees may be encouraged and helped to reduce the number of animals.
Our understanding is that where a proven alternative exists, researchers are quick to adopt it, not only on humanitarian grounds but because such methods are generally quicker, cheaper and more reliable. The use of alternatives is believed to be one of the factors that have led to the levelling off of the numbers of experiments performed over the last 12 years, and indeed to the fall in numbers in 1978 and 1979, the latest years for which published figures are available.
The hon. Lady has called upon the Government to take more positive action to encourage the development and evaluation of alternatives and the dissemination of information about those which already exist. Of course, as I have already said, the Government support the view that alternatives to animals should be used wherever possible. But we simply cannot ignore the present overall need to restrain public expenditure wherever possible, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of Government funds being made available for that purpose.
One of the difficulties in providing information or advice about alternatives is that there is rarely unanimous agreement among scientists about the validity and accuracy of alternative techniques in any given area. Nor are they agreed about their relative costs in terms of manpower, materials and time. In the last resort, the decision whether an alternative method will suit his purpose must be left to the individual scientist.
It is the view of the Medical Research Council, to which the hon. Lady referred, that alternative techniques to the use of live animals in biomedical research are best developed by scientists in the course of their own research programmes. The council considers that it is not practical for scientists to be engaged in devising alternatives as their sole or main activity separately from the research experiments for which alternatives would be desirable; and that the person conducting an experiment is in the best position to decide, from discussions with his colleagues, from his own experience and from a study of the scientific literature relating to his subject, whether techniques of his own or of others will serve his purpose without using


animals. It is also through knowledge of his own techniques or those of others that he is best able to judge during the course of his experiments when an alternative could usefully be developed.
Those well-established approaches to the conduct of research are far more likely, in the council's view, to be fruitful and economical in the use of animals than for scientists to be engaged in the search for alternatives to the use of animals in other scientists' experiments. I understand that most existing alternatives emerged during the course of scientific research and similar work, and were not devised as a result of someone deliberately engaged upon devising alternatives.
We would all like to see a continuing progressive reduction in the number of animals subjected to procedures which may involve them in some pain or distress,

consistent with the needs of human and animal health and of legitimate scientific research. So, to the extent that some alternatives contribute to that progress, their development is certainly to be encouraged. But I have sought to show that there are real limitations on how far and how fast that process can go.
Nevertheless, the hon. Lady has initiated a useful debate and has given us the opportunity to discuss an issue that is of considerable importance in the field of animal experimentation. I hope that I have convinced the House that the Government are fully aware of the problems and that I have been able to explain why it is not possible for the immediate progress in this field, which the hon. Lady and others, and indeed we ourselves, wish to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o' clock.